Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would much rather have software that works but lacks accessibility features than software that's broken but also has some broken accessibility features sprinkled in. The former is useful to many people, while the latter is useful to no one. But the key here is: LLMs don't have latent rigor, nor any other kind of rigor.
But software was already in a horrible state before AI, so your dichotomy doesn't work. The status quo with pre-AI Human Written software on a pedestal is that it doesn't work, and it lacks accessibility, polish, performance considerations, UX considerations, tests, and more. The built-in rigor is trivial to prove. Just put Opus 4.8 in plan mode and tell it to plan something, like a vt100 emulator. The question isn't…
It depends on the software. But, generally speaking, I try to use and write the best software available that solves my problem, even if it's one of a kind; it doesn't really matter if the other 99.9999% of the software in the space is broken.
Given 1000 hours to work on a problem, an LLM will continue to yeet out mediocre variations on a theme. Give me 1000 hours to work, and my product will keep getting 1% or 2% better until it's much better than any shit an LLM would spit out.
Similarly, I would much rather use someone else's emulator that they spent 1000 hours on than have AI yeet out some mediocre shit that kinda works, but is really just a mindless exploitation of something that someone else wrote that was actually good.
Then, you follow that with, "Yeah, but AI just allows you to iterate faster and skip the boring stuff, so that you make your product better even faster."
And then I follow that with, "The part where you take it apart piece by piece and study each piece and get kicked in the head by the realities of your lack of understanding is the part that's actually valuable, and it's precisely what you're skipping with an LLM"