Most enterprise software I use has serious defects. Professional CAD software for infrastructure is awful. Many are just incremental improvements piled upon software from the 1990s. Bugs last for decades because nobody can understand how the program works so they just work on one more little VBA plugin at a time. Meanwhile, the capabilities of these programs have fallen completely behind game studios with no budget and no business plan. Where are the results of this human excellence and code quality process? There are 10s of thousands of new CVEs every year from code hand crafted by artisans on their very own MacBooks. How? Perhaps there is the tiny possibility that maybe code quality is mostly an aesthetic judgment that nobody can really define, and just maybe this effort is mostly spent on vague concepts like maintainability or preferential decisions instead of the basics: does it meet the specification? Is the performance getting better or worse?
This is the game changer for me: I don’t have to evaluate tens or hundreds of market options that fit my problem. I tell the machine to solve it, and if it works, then I’m happy. If it doesn’t I throw it away. All in a few minutes and for a few cents. Code is going the way of the disposable diaper, and, if you ever washed a cloth diaper you will know, that’s a good thing.
> I tell the machine to solve it, and if it works, then I’m happy. If it doesn’t I throw it away.
What happens when it seems to work, and you walk away happy, but discover three months later that your circular components don't line up because the LLM-written CAD software used an over-rounded PI = 3.14? I don't work in industrial design, but I faced a somewhat similar issue where an LLM-written component looked fine to everyone until final integration forced us to rewrite it almost entirely.
This is basically me at my job right now. My boss used Claude Code in his spare time to write a "proof of concept" Electron app. It mostly worked but had some weird edge case behaviors. Now it's handed off to me, and fixing those edge cases is requiring me to refactor basically every single thing Claude touched. Vast majority I'm just tossing and redoing from scratch.
The original code "looks" fine, and it works pretty well even, but an LLM cannot avoid critical oversights along the way, and is fundamentally designed to its mistakes look as plausibly correct as possible. This makes correcting the problems down the line much more annoying (unless you can afford to live with the bugs and keep slapping on more band aids, i guess)
This is the game changer for me: I don’t have to evaluate tens or hundreds of market options that fit my problem. I tell the machine to solve it, and if it works, then I’m happy. If it doesn’t I throw it away. All in a few minutes and for a few cents. Code is going the way of the disposable diaper, and, if you ever washed a cloth diaper you will know, that’s a good thing.