With respect, you may not have the experience to recognize the cost tradeoff you're suggesting here.

If you're choosing to rely on a strict, exhaustive validation process to approve your work product without concern for how it's produced, you shifting focus to several critical cost centers:

1. Exhaustive validation is not free and its cost grow super-linearly as your work product gains complexity -- both on its tested surfaces and in what inefficiencies it develops internally. As you invite more frequent commits of more uncoordinated code, you're running your QA process ever more often on ever more heavy code, covering ever more work surface area. This is non-trivial cost and potentially catastrophic risk.

2. AI costs scale with token requirements and project complexity. As you allow uncoordinated code to accumulate within your product, you super-linearly increase the token consumption required by AI agents attempting future commits and analyses as they digest the increasingly chaotic/uncoordinated code base, both in raw input tokens and the reasoning tokens used to strategize plans. Even if you believe that your AI agents will be able to keep up with this expanding burden indefinitely (a questionable assumption!), you're incurring another growing, super-linear cost.

3. If you're relying on frontier models to make this workflow feasible at all, you're at risk of uncontrolled cost ratcheting if and when your code grows so speghettified that only those models can maintain it. You may have economics that work today, but the model providers you use are positioned to squeeze your margin aggressively once you trap yourself within their ecosystem.

Now, it's possible that an adept team can figure out how remediate some of these concerns by appropriately tasking agents to reduce project complexity and efficiency independent of new feature development. But the overall workflow here remains uncharted territory, where few people are going to be getting it right, and many will find themselves being painted into a very expensive dead end.

TLDR; do what you want, but all the traditional concerns of technical debt management and vendor exploitation risk are at play here. They've just shifted around in a way that makes it easy for inexperienced or myopic people to think they've somehow escaped them because the underlying technology itself is so novel and unfamiliar.

In general, what you're talking about here is something that businesses have been able to do for decades by delegating their tasks to outsourced suppliers. The lesson, then and now, is that it works until it doesn't and that once it stops working, you're screwed.

So be careful -- the revolution you've promised is not what you imagine it to be!

Thank you for your thoughtful answer!

Just to be clear: I haven’t made up my mind yet either :) that’s why I asked a question and avoided delivering truths or anything

Everything you said are all doubts I have, and especially the “it works until it doesn’t” is my biggest fear.

I’m probably less afraid of the “once it stops you’re screwed” part, I have been working in places where taking up codebases and products full of tech debt and renewing them was the norm, so I believe in the worst case that’s still doable.

So I’m not saying it’s an easy and straightforward revolution, yet I’m not so negative about it :)