There is definitely going to be some Wirth's law-like [0] effect about the asymmetry of software complexity outpacing LLMs' abilities to untangle said software. Claude 9.2 Optimus Prime might be able to wrangle 1M LoC, but somehow YC 2035 will have some Series A startup with 1B+ LoC in prod — we'll always have software companies teetering on the very edge of unmaintainability.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law

It won't be an LLM that does it, the entire feature of an LLM is it produces generalizable reasonably "correct" text in response to a context.

The system that makes it have an opinion about good vs bad architecture or engineering sensibilities will be something on top of the transformer and probably something more deterministic than a prompt.

We can do this today too (but definitely hopefully future LLMs make better architectural decisions). With Claude, I've been working on an application for the last 2 months. I didn't have a great vision of what I wanted when I started but I didn't want that to slow me down. The architecture is terrible - Claude separated some functionality into different classes but did a bad job at it and created a big ball of mud. Now that I finally have my vision locked down and implemented (albeit poorly), it'd be a great time to throw it away and start over. It'd be interesting to see the result and see how long it takes.

Will work just as good as today or 20 years ago.

"Make sure to double check everything, and MAKE NO MISTAKES!!!"

"Write me a really cool game, that will make me lots of money, fast!"

Do you think new LLMs are going to write better and better code? When all they are going to have is the slop generated by previous, worse models?