This seems needlessly nitpicky. Of course there will be edge cases, there always are in everything, so pointing out that edge cases may exist isn't helpful.

But it stands to reason that would be a huge shift if a system accessible to non-technical users could mostly handle those edge cases, even when "handle" means failing silently without taking the entire thing down, or simply raising them for human intervention via Slack message or email or a dashboard or something.

And Bob's still going to get paid a lot of money he'll just be doing stuff that's more useful than figuring out how negative numbers should be parsed in the ETL pipeline.

Hence the "not obviously require" bit: Some portion of those "simply gluing things together" will not actually be simple in truth. It'll work for a time until errors come to a head, then suddenly they'll need a professional to rip out the LLM asbestos and rework it properly.

That said, we should not underestimate the ability of companies to limp along with something broken and buggy, especially when they're being told there's no budget to fix it. (True even before LLMs.)

> when value Z is not >= X?

Is your AI not even doing try/catch statements, what century are you in?