Yeah this guy's arguments are bunk. He goes on about how LLMs are nondeterministic... as if humans aren't!

Doesn't matter what you think about AI, "it isn't perfect" is clearly a nonsense reason not to object to it.

Very little of the article is actually focused on stochasticity. I'd also say drawing an equivalent between the non-determinism of a person and an LLM is not that accurate either.

It's for example impossible to have a discussion with an LLM where you both learn something which you can apply tomorrow. The LLM doesn't learn until the next model is released and by then your discussion is just a tiny fraction of the training data (if present at all). AGENTS.md, skills and so on are just a proxy for what we actually want, an agent that listens and understands. A proxy mind you, that requires constant tweaking with no sign of generalisation in sight.

Does humans being non-deterministic make coding solved? I'm not sure how this relates to the main point.

I'm also not sure what humans being non-deterministic even means here. The point is if you're comparing results with NFR, pure agentic coding falls short.

Humans are non-deterministic.