If you read their use of "AI" as "LLM", then, yes, LLMs can't architect and I don't expect they ever will. You could power them up by a 10, past all the scaling

If you read their use of "AI" as "LLM", then, yes, LLMs can't architect and I don't expect they ever will. You could power them up by a 10, past all the scaling limits we have now, and LLMs would still be fundamentally unsuited for architecture. It's a technology fundamentally unsuited for even medium-small scale code coherence, let alone architectural-level coherence, just by its nature. It is simply constitutionally too likely to say "I need to validate user names" and slam out a fresh copy of a "username validation routine" because that autocompletes nicely, but now you've got a seventh "username validation routine" because the LLM has previously already done this several times before, and none of the seven are the same, and that's just one particularly easy-to-grasp example of their current pathologies. If anyone's moving the "architecture" goal posts it would be anyone who thinks that "architecture" so much as fits into the context window of a modern LLM, let alone that they are successfully doing it. They're terrible architects right now, like, worse than useless, worse than I'd expect from an intern. An intern may cargo cult design methodologies they don't understand yet but even that is better than what LLMs are producing. Whatever the next generation AI is, though, who can tell. What an AI could do that could actually construct symbolic maps of a system, manipulate that map directly, then manifest that in code, could accomplish is difficult to say. However nobody knows how to do that right now. It's not for lack of trying, either.