Engineers introduce these packages into their own projects that have far fewer of the above guarantees than OSS, are built under pressure from deadlines, and have a constantly churning set of maintainers.

I think from the perspective of a business its own code does call for greater scrutiny than its dependencies.

The problem we’re collectively running into is that nobody knows if this actually poses a problem anymore. We’ll find out in 5-10 years, but businesses and clients can’t wait that long.

As a side note, I don’t think it’s fair to blame the “management” for setting expectations around AI use. They’re driven by market forces. If competitors are producing slop and customers are gobbling it up, then from a business perspective it _is_ a mistake to abstain from AI use.

What I’m finding quite fascinating is that we’re in a weird spot right now where we’re both expected to produce slop AND understand it / be responsible for it. Seems unreasonable.

These companies don’t appear to give a single fuck about public perception. Only their investors and the government (in anticipation of the biggest bailout in human history).

The speedup of slop production being “worth it” is what we, as a society, are having trouble evaluating at this point in time. In all likelihood it’s worth it only in the short term.

Seems like so far the market is not convinced at all that SaaS companies as a whole are any more disruptable than before.

Let me know once the majority of software engineering organizations start only checking in markdown files and let code be generated non-deterministically from these specs in CI. If this is not happening now, there’s clearly a sufficiently high level of distrust in blind LLM output (both code itself and reviews).

And even then, are you suggesting humans shouldn’t at least review the markdown specs? Why not have LLMs review the specs then? Is there, perhaps, some fundamental quality to human review process that is desirable here?