[oh_sigh]

I feel like you only see programmers as cogs, and not programmers as invested in the success of their product with the statement like "satisfy 100% of what programmers are incentivized to do"

Generally the people using regexes care if they're correct. Frequently, all possible input variants are not enumerated in tests. Frequently, companies want to have confidence in their production code. Imagine this regex is deployed on a sign up flow, and its failures invisibly increase your churn rate. Can it happen with a hand crafted regex? Yes, of course. But I'd imagine it will happen even more frequently with an AI produced custom regex plus a person who doesn't actually understand regexes.

[whatshisface]

Programmers often feel invested in the success of their product but that's not what they're incentivized to do. They're incentivized to produce fast results that are bad in ways that you have to be a programmer to understand.

If you have to be a programmer to understand why something's bad, who's going to prevent it? This is a major unsolved problem in the structure and organization of working.

[solveit]

The CTO who used to be a dev. More generally anyone in management with a technical background. They may not exist in some companies, but that's not because it's "a major unsolved problem in the structure and organization of working", it's because the company sucks in that regard.

[Retric]

Except testers and users aren’t programmers. Code reviews are what’s supposed to catch this stuff, but it’s rare for a team lead or other programmer to investigate every single commit.