Yeah, there's a double-standard I've been seeing in LLM discourse here: LLMs suck but they are also somehow expected to proactively do maintenance sweeps in your code over time and repay technical debt, presumably on your behalf.
If you want to build well-architected, well-tested code or pay back debt, the LLMs make the world your oyster. And it's easier than ever since LLMs have no problem doing ridiculous cross-cutting refactoring that you'd never have done on your own.
That LLMs essentially lead to code that's harder to maintain, or that human-produced code is easier to maintain by default just aren't claims I'd sign off on, and TFA doesn't try to render the argument.
I'd argue the opposite since LLMs make it trivial to plan arch/tests for all the code changes you wouldn't have had the energy to do it for.
If you want to build well-architected, well-tested code or pay back debt, the LLMs make the world your oyster. And it's easier than ever since LLMs have no problem doing ridiculous cross-cutting refactoring that you'd never have done on your own.
That LLMs essentially lead to code that's harder to maintain, or that human-produced code is easier to maintain by default just aren't claims I'd sign off on, and TFA doesn't try to render the argument.
I'd argue the opposite since LLMs make it trivial to plan arch/tests for all the code changes you wouldn't have had the energy to do it for.