Doesn't that workflow sound backwards? I'd much rather write the tests themselves (so I can be sure it's working as expected in my mind + get a somewhat reasona

Doesn't that workflow sound backwards? I'd much rather write the tests themselves (so I can be sure it's working as expected in my mind + get a somewhat reasonable interface for the functions), then let a LLM write the implementation, than the other way around. I guess the end-goal is the same as "Acceptance Testing", have the LLMs write both unit tests and implementation. Just missing the piece of letting the LLMs debug the inevitable crashes that will happen in production, and be able to hotfix it, so the website visitors (LLM crawlers) don't complain.