Sure - software development is complex, but there seems to be a general attempt over time to improve the process and develop languages, frameworks and practices that remove the sources of human error.

Use of AI seems to be a regression in this regard, at least as currently used - "look ma, no hands! I've just vibe coded an autopiliot". The current focus seems to be on productivity - how many more lines of code or vibe-coded projects can you churn out - maybe because AI is still basically a novelty that people are still learning how to use.

If AI is to be used productively towards achieving business goals then the focus is going to need to mature and change to things like quality, safety, etc.

This is why i auto-approve everything. How else do you incentivize building better process?

Code reviews are useful, but I think everyone would admit that they are not _perfect_.

People have built complex working mostly bug free products without code reviews so humans are not that flawed.

With humans and code reviews now two humans looked at it. With LLM and code review of the LLM output now one human looked at it, so its not the same. LLM are still far from as reliable as humans or you could just tell the LLM to do code reviews and then it builds the entire complex product itself.

People have built complex bug free software without __formal__ code review. It's very rare to write complex bug free software without at least __informal__ code review, and it's luck, not skill.

Can't have a code review if you're coding solo[0], unless we are redefining the meaning of "code review" to the point of meaningless by including going over one's own code.

0. The dawn of video games had many titles with 1 person responsible for programming. This remains the case many indy games and small software apps and services. It's a skill that requires expertise and/or dedication.