No, that quality drops so low across the board due to flaws in AI coding that they only way to address all these flaws is to have mechanically checked proofs that the code actually works.

More that our attempts at using probabilistic machines to produce predictably deterministic outputs (AI -> process output) was always a fool’s errand; we should be using that probability engine to produce software that creates repeatable and predictable outcomes, instead (AI -> software, software -> process output).

The AI tool isn’t wrong, our use of it is. See the glut of OpenClaw users effectively deploying it as a glorified linter and Stack Overflow copier but without actually creating the sort of reusable artifacts (or consumer spending from comparatively high wages) that approach yielded from human developers.