In its current state, LLMs produce code that is on par with the average developer. This is not necessarily bad since most firms can only afford to hire average developers, the difference in quality is negligible. And on the flip side, by producing the code it does, AI also raises the floor by eliminating code smells typical of below-average developers, so there's that.

Over 12-18 months of moving my teams to LLM as the IDE I've observed they DO NOT equal a mid-level engineer on their own. More importantly, over time they code reduces to more that of a junior self-taught engineer who has no concept of software engineering (delivery as a team vs. raw academic).

I've built around Claude (althought the infra is LLM agnostic) and the code it produces is okay. You can invest and get better. However, that was the same BEFORE llm generated code.

I'm finding that my investment motions, governance motions are more about medium change, not much else.

Standardards, guidelines, et al are now stored in .md vs. wiki, docs, etc.

Code reviews are still code reviews.

Release planning is still releaes planning.

All the same motions. JUST LOTS MORE OF THEM.

But we've scaled quality throughput before. It's just with a new IDE.

> on par with the average developer

More like a genius junior developer who's been home-schooled by the web for better and worse. Hard-working, often impressive, but missing some common sense, occasionally spouts nonsense, and needs guidance to make sure they don't go off the rails.