[bfeynman]

A lot of software practices are not based on engineering but rather psychology, and based on the fact that software costs $$$ to develop and maintain. There has been a complete paradigm shift with AI and it has underlined all of this. It's plausible there is no need (in high level programming at least) for any sorts of best practices, design patterns, code hygiene because not only will persons not even be looking at it, but AI can just rewrite an entire service if it needs to add a small feature and refactor everything, nothing needs to be written to be scalable or extensible if this cost becomes free. This is getting closer and closer to reality every month.

[necovek]

I believe we are already seeing that this is not true with the LLM systems we have available today — perhaps it changes in the (near?) future.

What happens in the above scenario is that software gets evolved to a point where LLM cannot make any progress anymore without deep additional direction that a human is unable to provide at that point.

Most effective SW development with LLMs today happens under system architecture/engineering controls by humans — remove that and you converge into a closed-loop situation.

My analysis of this is that "best practices" have evolved to represent a sweet-spot between _running_ complex systems and _evolving_ complex systems, and removing humans out of that equation does not change what works or does not work (I had a sufficiently hard time coaching humans to adopt the best practices as well).