> When I fix a security vulnerability, I'm not just checking if the tests pass. I'm asking: does this actually close the attack vector?

If you have to ask, then you'd be better putting that effort into fixing the test coverage.

Why would I want to take advice about keeping humans in the loop from someone who let an LLM write 90% of their blog post?

There will always be a human in the loop, at what level is the question. It was a very short while ago, in the last couple of months in my case where it went from having to to go at a function level to what the posts describe (still not to the level the Death of SWE article is). It is hard for me to imagine that LLMs can go 1 level higher anytime soon. Progress is not guaranteed. Regardless on whether it improves or not I think it is best to assume that it won't and build using that assumption. The shortcomings of the current (NEW) system and their failings are what end up creating the new patterns for work and the industry. I think that is the more interesting conversation, not how quickly can we ship code but what that means for organizations what skills become the most valuable and what actually rises to the top.

AI derived piece arguing with another AI derived piece about AI. It's slop all the way down.