I heard a talk from a VP at NVIDIA a couple of months ago and he echoed this. Essentially their policy is "you are still fully responsible for the code you ship, whether AI helps with it or not"

Precisely. And this is why all the MCP servers that people at my company are writing aren't worth using: their apparent goal is automate as much as possible. They're encouraging people not to pay attention. This results in bad code, bad tests, and bugs.

> you still have to read and understand the code

Which is a very similar approach to any serious code. If you just hired a very clever, enormously knowledgeable intern, and they wrote a bunch of code for you overnight, you would probably review it.

Yes, in some cases, either hobby projects or throwaway code, you could just take it and use it as is, and I surely do, for the code no one cares about. But at work, I would rather review it.

Not at all. Code is not important, intent is. The leader of a product/company does not have to read code. It doesn't matter if it is generated by humans or non-humans. It simply needs to be correct enough to be usable and then steerable towards better outcomes. Understanding of code never existed from the business perspective.

I'm no longer sure you have to, actually. I mean, we do trust the assembly that compilers produce without having to read it, don't we? We're rapidly getting to that stage with LLMs, IMO.