I tend to agree with the article.

A typical example of trying to add a new significant capability involves many meetings (days, weeks, months, etc. )with the business to understand how their work flows between systems X, Y and Z as well as all of the significant exceptions (e.g. we handle subset A this way and subset B that way, but for the final step we blend those groups together, except for subset C which requires special process 97).

Then with that understanding comes the system solutioning across multiple systems that can be a blend of internal system or vendor's system, each with different levels of ability to customize, which pushes the shape of the final solution in different directions.

There is certainly value in speeding up coding, but it's just one piece of the puzzle and today LLM's can't help with gathering the domain information and defining a solution.

I've seen proposals for Product Managers to define those conditions themselves by speaking with the LLM. A continuing architectural diagram is constructed and graph is updated until all cases are covered and then the LLM writes the code, writes the validations, pushes to CI environments, runs tests, schedules prod deploy (by looking at company event schedule), gets CAB approval, deploys code, tests in prod, and fixes regressions.

I'm not saying this is the correct thing, but companies are implementing it and it is "working". I don't think keeping our head in the sand is helping.