Not that many apparently.
They talk like that in the board room, they talk like that when it's 2 CEOs out for a drink (and you got drug along, since you're the Chief Engineer), and they talk that way when they're just shooting the shit.
Hanging out with groups of executives in Vegas during conventions leads me to want to fucking kill myself. It's not human conversation. It's weird cosplaying.

Board of directors. You're crossing boards and groups, and it has confused you.

Bullshit.

And if you said that to the person who said it in the board of directors that I sit on, that would be the last thing you ever said in it, and subsequently, that position.

Board of Directors for a medium sized LLC, and smaller LLCs that we acquired before dissolving.

I find they're quite excellent at writing unit tests.
Better than writing well-thought-out code, for sure.

20 years here, and I'm wondering if you've actually tried.

Some models have been overly-sycophantic, however that's the exception- and a gross failure in fine-tuning, not the norm.
ChatGPT 5.2:

That being said- I do agree with the final point: If you're one of those people who has a serious inferiority complex, or some kind of gross insecurity, you're going to swallow up affirmation when models produce it.
But a lot of work goes into trying to make sure they don't.

Let them do all their code with AI. Please. When it all comes crashing to the ground, they will have to hire real developers for real money to come in and try to fix the slop.

Completely incorrect.
An LLM remembers nothing that doesn't fit into its context.
To that end, we have standardized files that are pumped into the context as a form of "long term guidance/memory". The engine has nothing to do with this.

Also completely incorrect.
It'll do as you ask. If you ask it to refactor at some threshold of attempts at getting the test to pass with an implementation- it will.

Tech debt in LLM output is real, and yes- precisely because nobody gives a fuck what it's producing, and thus doesn't really understand it.
However, generative models are not "copying and modding".

Thus practice may be very bad for your health. Not that these "executives" care, but you should.

Yes. And that is how AWS got their 13 hour (?) outage. That outage was probably more expensive than what they can save in cost over a year or several by using LLMs as surrogate coders.

Why stop there? Make it part of the start-up message and if there is none, add one!

Well, the routinely clueless economics graduates certainly think so. My take is that in a few years actually competent coders will be in high demand to fix the mess and out out a lot of fires. When that happens and if you are inclined to participate, make them pay through the nose.

Sounds like very risky behavior. But some people are simply not smart...

Will probably not take long.

Who was it who said that no documentation was better than incorrect documentation? Aside from you in the not-too-distant future, I mean.

Seriously, this is right up there with silly nonsense like "just have AI write the tests as well". It's like you hate your future self and want them to suffer.

Yes, I suppose you can tell it to do that ... it's just not something that it can actually do.

Is it really? Every AI fluffing article we've seen that makes those claims has, after even cursory examination, turned out to be complete horseshit. I suspect that, like most people who still have faith in magical AI, you're not paying too much attention to the output.

Check out Clive Sinclair - he was an engineer and did pretty damn well selling his computers in the UK.

Kinda, I mean he did well, but it went under. Acorn did somewhat better and parts of Acorn are alive and well to this day.

Furber and Wilson lacked that marketing muscle. Were they a unique talent? I mean... no one else did that. Their CPU worked first time, outperformed their contemporaries, ran at a fraction of the power cost a fraction of the amount and went on to become massively popular.

Maybe Woz couldn't have done that, but it doesn't mean Jobs was the one required to help him, any competenant marketing type could have done the same. Vew few people could have designed the hardware and software that Woz did at the time.

I'd argue that Jobs was unusually good at marketing. Maybe as rare as Woz. I mean, look at the cult of personality that's developed around him where people think Apple (or really Jobs himself) invented all sorts of things which were actually popularized by Apple, but invented by someone else.

His schtick works.

I have no idea what graduates you look at, but this is not the case here (Europe).

Pretty much this. LLMs can be convenient, but they are not magic and that they make competent coders slower is pretty well established by now.