Developers make these kinds of improvements all the time. Are you saying that it would have been impossible without AI?

> You can always change it later.

People seem to think that technical debt doesn't need to be paid back for ages. In my experience bad code starts to cost more than it saved after about three months. So if you have to get a demo ready right now that will save the company then hack it in. But that's not the case for most technical debt. In most cases the management just want the perception of speed so they pile debt upon debt. Then they can't figure out why delivery gets slower and slower.

> ironically it is your camp that advices to not use microservices but start with monolith. that's what i'm suggesting here.

I agree with this. But there's a difference between over-engineering and hacking in bad quality code. So to be clear, I am talking about the latter.

> It IS a compiler.

What are you talking about? If an LLM is a compiler, then I'm a compiler. Are we going to redefine the meaning of words in order not to upset the LLM makers?

>Human engineers are not deterministic yet people pay them

Human carpenters are not deterministic yet they won't use a machine saw that goes off line even 1% of the time. The whole history of tools, including software, is one of trying to make the thing do more precisely what is intended, whether the intent is right or not.

Can you imagine some machine tool maker making something faulty and then saying, "Well hey, humans aren't deterministic."

> Second, GCed languages need to be willing to fit with the web/WASM GC model

Suppose the Go people make a special version of Go for Wasm. What do you think are the chances of that being supported in 5 years time?