I really doubt spec driven development is gonna last. As before, creating working software and iterating on it is faster and makes it easier to understand what you thought you wanted but don't, even if it's vibe coded. So, hello agile, welcome back.
That depends on how many details I specify.
If I specify a lot, I usually get what I want. But in the extreme this is just another form of coding (high quality code is quite similar to a detailed spec).
In many cases I find I have to do many "passes" to get the right balance of correctness, performance, security, and clean architectural boundaries.
Having a loop to fix these often makes it worse since they can often be contradictory.
There's also some types of code that I believe is often wrong in the training data that is almost always wrong in the LLM output as well.
Typically anything that should have been a state machine, like auth flows, wizards, etc.
When all is said and done I think the main savings come from the high throughput of low-value generic solutions. I don't currently see this changing, and the reason is that high quality products cannot be generated without specifying a lot of details. Of course, we may not want quality.
Well they then use more AI to try to fix the PR, which leads to many more rounds of the same. It's like I'm coding using an AI except through a real person who mangles the prompt. I've had some success as well in talking people out of it, but it feels like I'm gonna lose eventually
It is everywhere. Even on birthday invites for my kids there's nonsense from an LLM. At work I review PRs with code that doesn't even run. Doing research is harder than ever as more and more references are completely made up.
We're too lazy and too obsessed with getting ahead to use this technology responsibly in my opinion.
Human effort signals value, AI does not.
Human effort is often inviting collaboration. AI rarely does.