what we should and what we are forced to do are very different things. if I can get a machine to do the stuff I hate dealing with, I'll take it every time.

It's like the xkcd on automation

https://xkcd.com/1205/

After a while, it just make sense to redesign the boilerplate and build some abstraction instead. Duplicated logic and data is hard to change and fix. The frustration is a clear signal to take a step back and take an holistic view of the system.

And this is a great example of something I rarely see LLMs doing. I think we're approaching a point where we will use LLMs to manage code the way we use React to manage the DOM. You need an update to a feature? The LLM will just recode it wholesale. All of the problems we have in software development will dissolve in mountains of disposable code. I could see enterprise systems being replaced hourly for security reasons. Less chance of abusing a vulnerability if it only exists for an hour to find and exploit. Since the popularity of LLMs proves that as a society we've stopped caring about quality, I have a hard time seeing any other future.

who's going to be held accountable when the boilerplate fails? the AI?

no, I'm testing it the same way I test my own code!

yolo merging into prod on a friday afternoon?

The buck stops with the engineer, always. AI or no AI.

I've seen juniors send AI code for review, when I comment on weird things within it, it's just "I don't know, the AI did that"

Oh, me too. And I reject them as the same as if they had copied code from Stack Overflow they can't explain.

I regret that I have but one upvote to give to this comment.

Every time someone says "LLMs are good at boilerplate" my immediate response is "Why haven't you abstracted away the boilerplate?"