Better programming, task to task, does not result in better applications. For a simple example, consider a would be program that takes 100 tasks of 16 hours ea

Better programming, task to task, does not result in better applications. For a simple example, consider a would be program that takes 100 tasks of 16 hours each to build a program with a quality of 75%. With AI, those tasks can take an average of 12 hours each, meaning the software can be delivered faster. Unless someone purposefully invests the saved time into improving the program, you'll end up with the same 75% quality program faster. Now what if AI makes the code slightly worse, leading the quality to drop to 70%, but some of the savings are used to improve quality, bringing it back up to 75%? Same outcome of the product not being any better to the end user. Even if the code is higher quality, how much of that 25% of missing quality is the result of bad code verses bad designs or a mismatch between what customer wants and what those designing the project think the customer wants? Even a perfect AI that solves all bugs won't improve that. In short, programming better can mean many different things, some of which might translate to a better or worse product, but with no consistency.