I don't see how asking AI to write some description of why it wrote this or that code would actually result in an explanation of why it wrote that code? It's not like it's thinking about it in that way, it's just generating both things. I guess they'd be in the same context so it might be somewhat correct.

> So you live in a world where code history must only be maintained orally?

There are many companies and scenarios where this is completely legitimate.

For example, a startup that's iterating quickly with a small, skilled dev team. A bunch of documentation is a liability, it'll be stale before anyone ever reads it.

Just grabbing someone and collaborating with them on what they wrote is much more effective in that situation.

Have you never had a situation where a question arose a year (or several) later that wasn’t addressed in the original documentation?

In particular IME the LLM generates a lot of documentation that explains what and not a lot of the why (or at least if it does it’s not reflecting underlying business decisions that prompted the change).