Until LLMs become as reliable as compilers, this isn't a meaningful comparison IMO.
To put it in your words, I don't think LLMs get us 90% of the way there because they get us almost 100% of the way there sometimes, and other times less than 0%.
There is a level of reliability that is sufficient, as proven by us humans, the existence of issue trackers, and the entire industry that is software QA.
And, further, the existence of offshore, low quality, contractors that are in such frequent use.
If it makes money, the problem is solved. At least from the perspective of the people with the money.
Less cynically, it doesn't matter whether some code was written by a human or an LLM -- it still has to be tested and accepted. That responsibility ultimately must end up on a human's desk.
I disagree with this take. LLMs reliably solve 20% of my problem and are a gamble for a few percent more. There are problems that LLM is reliably not solving.
You have a point, but people would just say "you use it wrong, just prompt better" and so on.
The selling point is that it unreliably solves all your problems, "this model is PHD level intelligence!", compilers we know solves some problems and can't solve others, for LLM what they can actually do is very poorly understood by most since marketing oversells it so hard.
