I'd %100 prefer an opus 4.8 rewrite over %99 of the time. Unless Fabrice Bellard is rewriting the stuff I need, I'd prefer AI over a human coder.
It was trained on all code the code that could be found.
Not just code written by genius programmers like Carmack and Bellard.
Given that it's average, I'd prefer a human coder above average :)
I've been programming a long time and considered myself among the top in my domain and AI agents using like GPT 5.5 etc. are much better than me.
Ex falso quodlibet
> I've been programming a long time and considered myself among the top in my domain
I am not trying to attack you, but you considered yourself that... I don't know whether you actually were and frankly I don't care.
Then, by giving them context or by post-training, you can make them sample non-average parts of the distribution they learned.
How do you derive that something is "below average" or "average" or "above average"?
In the case of real world LLMs and post-training, what is above average is defined roughly as: labeled good by expert humans, and scoring high on RL environments related to coding like debugging, passing tests, or running efficiently and verifiably correctly.
One technique is RLHF: have an human expert assess it.
Like a short example is easier to grade, but not in the same ballpark as a whole codebase.
How do you? I mean, that was your point basis.