Sure. If his take was "100% unit test coverage is a waste of time" I think that's not unreasonable. You could make a case that the "you must write tests before you write code, every single time!" stuff is needlessly dogmatic. I also think that sometimes people focus too much on unit tests to the detriment of end to end tests that better model actual system interactions.

None of these were Theo's take. He was pushing the idea that unit tests in general were a waste of time because you could be shipping new features instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvBHyip4peo for an example of this. The nicest possible interpretation on this is that he's deliberately saying something he knows is wrong to attract attention.

When I start using a chainsaw or a car I hope it has been tested (!) Without tests before delivery the one who tests is the end user. Disaster for a unreliable chainsaw, very unpleasant for a software.

But you're right, the goal is not to write test but to ensure delivery of a reliable software. However each software is a prototype, something that has never been made before (unlike a manufactured car or chainsaw) so the customer must be ready to some unexpected behaviors when the software is released.

Since tests are often sloppy or does not cover every edge case, I see a real value for GenAI. It also forces to write good spec: very clear about inputs and the invariants for each use case. I think that AI (especially GenAI) should first be a solution to existing problem, lack of tests and good specs is often one of them.