[s_dev]

The new bottle neck isn't writing code, it's testing. You're right you can't blindly trust the output of an LLM but you can trust the testing regime to ensure a certain standard has been met. In hindsight this actually sort of obvious, the more things change the more they stay the same etc.

[ivanvoid]

Well it’s not obvious that is true. If you ask LLM to write tests, it will generate versions of them that code passes, that doesn’t guarantee good code. If you write tests yourself and just pray for great LLM pull, it’s easier to just write code yourself, in my humble opinion

[s_dev]

That's a useless approach as you point out but doesn't meant there isn't a valid testing regime to be explored and upheld. Manual testing is going to be a lot more important, I see QA teams/roles becoming very valuable assets in the coming years.

[em-bee]

you can trust the tests that you have written, but what about the tests that you didn't write? can you be sure that your testsuite is complete?

when i do test driven development, all the thinking goes into the tests, and the actual code writes itself. LLMs hardly help make that any faster.

having a complete testsuite may make it easier to use LLMs for refactoring, and adding features, but then you still have to write he tests for the new functionality.