> I don't know if architecture is a solvable problem for these models, but it is interesting watching the expectations moving over time. At least with current

> I don't know if architecture is a solvable problem for these models, but it is interesting watching the expectations moving over time. At least with current languages, I think the primary problem is they are globally complex, and it's not scalable for them (and certainly for you to review a codebase they've mainly or completely generated) that the invariants you want are being withheld. No matter how many times you tell them - there is ZERO blocking allowed on the critical path, they will add blocking on the critical path. No matter how many times you tell them any time they do X, they need Y type of test, they will do X without Y type of test. They cannot follow directions 100%. Neither can people. But they are more random. The mistakes people make are less likely to do the exact polar opposite of what you wanted to do. People are less likely to see a critical invariant in the code, build themselves a loophole to get through it, write a test that the code fails successfully, and then tell you they did exactly what you asked for, and burry it in a 5k line commit, where 1000 lines are them changing comments that shouldn't be there in the first place. LLMs are great. I'm convinced they're the future. I'm building a language specifically for them: https://GitHub.com/Cuzzo/clear https://GitHub.com/Cuzzo/clear - and to make it easier for YOU to work with them. I think once we get around this language problem, that they need global context for things where they shouldn't, it will be a challenge to work with them. I've had success with them, but it's been so frustrating, that I question how much it's been worth my sanity.