It's funny how differently people see things. I find reading/reviewing LLM generated code to be much more difficult and tedious that writing it myself.

You probably micromanage the LLMs architectural choices. Thats actually a bad idea, you will probably get better results if you let the LLM decide the architecture and just tweak it where its assumptions are wrong. It has much more context than you in its codebase anyway. Then you won’t feel like a general more, but you’ll be much more productive :)

I just don't get how you can properly reason about the code if you're not involved in writing it, though.

I keep giving AI-assisted programming a serious try, but time and time I land in the exact same place: reading the code is more exhausting than writing the code, _and_ I end up with a far worse understanding of what is being built than if I had just written it myself. The fact that LLMs tend to write _way_ too much code certainly doesn't help.

And what makes me sad is that, if you follow this line of inquiry, you eventually realize that capital isn't challenging the value of humans _writing_ the code, but rather the value of humans _understanding_ the code. Because, as I've experienced many times when talking to those how have completely bought in on the hype, the answer is always to just "let the AI handle that." AI writing too much code? Have it summarize it for you. Your understanding of the code is worse than if you wrote it yourself? If it works, who cares!

And yes, I think we are well on our way to becoming Markdown jockeys.