Do you basically know that quality of code hasn't declined based on the number of incidents that are occurring? How do you even know what is happening?
Claude has let me build really cool things but so far I'm not letting it run on it's own.
Every bit of code gets 10-50 review passes against extensive smells, rules, best practices, etc. Naive reviews and documentation driven development is your friend. If your code isn’t 100percent testable (even code previously considered untestable, because now you can create simulators and jigs) and you aren’t spending 5x+ tokens on review over coding, you’re going to have a bad time.
It’s still 5-10x less expensive than people, and you end up with higher quality code in the end.
Problem is that we can't define precisely what is good enough or when software is "finished": I mean, we are trying to do that with human languages, so it should not be a surprise.
Yes, LLMs are now similarly aware of the average context a human would be aware of, but for anything specific to the situation a human has better chances of resolving the ambiguity.