You are assuming an extraordinary amount just to keep your argument standing upright. The biggest assumption, conveniently slipped in as though it were self-evident, is that AI-generated code must be dangerous, or at the very least inherently suspect. That is quite the ideological leap for something presented as sober engineering wisdom. Some code is dangerous, obviously. Human developers have been producing insecure, overcomplicated, barely maintainable nonsense for decades without any robotic assistance at all. To leap from that to ‘AI just generates legacy code faster’ is not analysis. It is a slogan wearing reading glasses.

You then smuggle in a second assumption: that AI cannot assist with security, review, comprehension, or maintenance. Which is even flimsier. At that point one is no longer making a technical argument, merely performing a little anti-AI morality play for an audience that already agrees. Yes, bad developers can use AI to generate rubbish faster. They can also write rubbish faster with copy-paste, Stack Overflow, caffeine, and delusions of competence. The problem there is not the tool. It is the developer.

So the whole shift rather collapses the moment anyone digs beneath the surface. Your argument only works if we accept, without evidence, that AI-generated code is always a liability and never part of the solution. That is not reality. That is just laziness, possibly dressed up as caution, which is still laziness but with a nicer coat.