The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that.

Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally rewritten. LLMs still aren't good at writing maintainable code. Can they write plausibly functional code? Yes. But it won't survive the long term. People using LLMs to write all their code are gambling on them eventually getting to a point where the LLMs can fix their own code. It's possible, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it.

Where I have found immense value from LLMs is in code review. Repeated review by LLMs catches an amazing amount of potential issues. They really shine on security review, but are very effective with any kind of review.

The other thing that the "LLMs write code camp" misunderstands is that writing was never the bottleneck. Understanding was. And understanding the code is still the bottleneck. But understanding is truly gained during the writing loop. The understanding you gain from pure reading or code review is marginal compared to the understanding you gain while writing.

Most of the time previously spent writing was actually spent updating and deepening our understanding of the system under development. There's no replacement for that understanding in a world where LLMs are doing the writing.

But if you flip it: humans write, LLMs review, then you still get a major gain -- not in speed, but in quality. And you keep the understanding loop intact. I would propose that this might be the best way to deploy LLMs.

If programmer productivity was something we actively optimized for, we wouldn't have crammed programmers like sardines in warm and noisy open floor offices with 2000 ppm CO2 levels and then further constantly interrupt them with emails and slack pings and meetings all day long, Jira rigmarole wouldn't make up a significant portion of what they did, programmers would have instead mostly been thinking and programming.

We've always had the ability to 2X if not 10X the output of each and every one of those poor souls. You don't end with this sort of programming purgatory because it's a productivity optimum, it very clearly isn't, but because it's a billable hours optimum and/or an org chart clout optimum and/or because of Jevons paradox got hands even in business management and the IT department was allocated too many dollars.

There are a lot of (excruciatingly) long-form posts about what folks are pioneering but not a whole lot of follow up about what failed. Where are the short posts on the negative space? How did halving your staff work out? Flattening your org? All those dark factories, what haven't they produced? How about all the other things tried, failed, and unceremoniously scrapped?

We need to explore and communicate the negative space more efficiently. Don't repeat the same mistakes, and don't make me read 2653 words when 300 do it better.

1. Pursuing polish and quality beyond previous norms

2. Replacing $100/mo/seat SAAS with something coded by a junior costing $200/day to develop over months.

The cost of code approaches zero, but the cost of communication, having accountability, and hosting remains the same, and so individuals need to only coordinate to the extent that those things remain finite resources. Management needs to stop insisting that their directs adopt each others vibe coded tooling.

Does this guy have access to Gemini 4 already?

I'm guessing Gemma 4 was happy to be mistaken for Gemini and didn't catch this mistake.

I work at a company where the biggest problems are not 'writing code', they are:

- Organising teams

- Designing the system

- Prioritisation of work

The fuckups that we make on a daily bases are not 'code errors' they are failures in THOSE three things. I'll go into detail if anyone cares.

LLMs have brought a different unlock, and for everything we're seeing become easier, it allows people learn to use the tools to take on solving problems that couldn't be approached before.

Not everything has to be written as though it’s a middle manager’s idea of what makes for a good TED talk.