I'm going to give an example of a software with multiple processes.

Humans can imagine scenarios where a process can break. Claude can also do it, but only when the breakage happens from inside the process and if you specify it. It can not identify future issues from a separate process unless you specifically describe that external process, the fact that it could interact with our original process and the ways in which it can interact.

Identifying these are the skills of a developer, you could say you can document all these cases and let the agent do the coding. But here's the kicker, you only get to know these issues once you started coding them by hand. You go through the variables and function calls and suddenly remember a process elsewhere changes or depends on these values.

Unit tests could catch them in a decently architected system, but those tests needs to be defined by the one coding it. Also if the architect himself is using AI, because why not, it's doomed from the start.

In my experience the limiting factor is doing the right choices. I've got a costumer with the usual backlog of features. There are some very important issues in the backlog that stay in the backlog and are never picked for a sprint. We're doing small bug fixes, but the big ones. We're doing new features that are in part useless because of the outstanding bugs that prevent customers from fully using them. AI can make us code faster but nobody is using it to sort issues for importance.

Elegant code isn’t just for looks. It’s code that can still adapt weeks, months, years after it has shipped and created “business value”.

  LLM has been hollowing out the mid and lower end of engineering. But has not eroded highest end. Otherwise all the LLM companies wouldn’t pay for talent, they’d just use their own LLM.

OpenAI has said they're slowing down hiring drastically because their models are making them that much more productive. Codex itself is being built by Codex. Same with Claude Code.

That's fine. I found the leading stats interesting. If coding assistants slowed down experienced developers while creating a false sense of development speed then that should be thought-provoking. Also, nearly half of code churned by coding assistants having security issues. That he's tough.

Perhaps it's just me, but that's in line with my personal experience, and I rarely see those points being raised.

> There is this super interesting post in new about agent swarms and how (...)

That's fine. Feel free to submit the link. I find it far more interesting to discuss the post-rose tinted glasses view of coding agents. I don't think it makes any sense at all to laud promises of formal verification when the same technology right now is unable to introduce security vulnerabilities.

This deserves a blog post all on its own. OP you should write one and submit it. It's a good counterweight to all the AI optimistic/pessimistic extremism.