I think the author answers their own question at the end.

The first 3/4 of the article is "we must be responsible for every line of code in the application, so having the LLM write it is not helping".

The last 1/4 is "we had an urgent problem so we got the LLM to look at the code base and find the solution".

The situation we're moving to is that the LLM owns the code. We don't look at the code. We tell the LLM what is needed, and it writes the code. If there's a bug, we tell the LLM what the bug is, and the LLM fixes it. We're not responsible for every line of code in the application.

It's exactly the same as with a compiler. We don't look at the machine code that the compiler produces. We tell the compiler what we want, using a higher-level abstraction, and the compiler turns that into machine code. We trust compilers to do this error-free, because 50+ years of practice has proven to us that they do this error-free.

We're maybe ~1 year into coding agents. It's not surprising that we don't trust LLMs yet. But we will.

And it's going to be fascinating how this changes the Computer Science. We have interpreted languages because compilers got so good. Presumably we'll get to non-human-readable languages that only LLMs can use. And methods of defining systems to an LLM that are better than plain English.