I guarantee your specs/testing are either inadequate and/or you're not leveraging lots of existing (and probably free open source) code that was already written

I guarantee your specs/testing are either inadequate and/or you're not leveraging lots of existing (and probably free open source) code that was already written by humans and meets the spec better without ever needing an LLM. The vast majority of properly written software was already plumbing well over a decade ago. The software engineering is making high level decisions based on experience with respect to the existing tools and the needs of the business. If you're not already using LLMs that way, you would have been a similarly bad manager of human devs writing similar inadequate slop. Less code has always been better code. The line in the sand for these arguments really ought to be whether you think LLMs are better than humans who actually know what they're doing. If you think LLMs are better, or could get better while continuing to use statistical methods, you automatically lose the argument (delusional/ignorant) and any hope of regaining credibility. That's not dogma. That's the science.