I’m not sure that analogy works. The machines used for making clothes are reliable and produce repeatable results that are good enough. I recently had to throw away a 15 year old T-shirt because it was getting a bit too ratty, but it still technically functioned as a T-shirt. Also, mass produced clothing in standardised sizes didn’t actually replace the bulk of tailor-mode clothing, that was always something for the rich, but that’s getting too deep into it.

In comparison, LLM-based code generators are inherently unreliable and by their very nature incapable of ever becoming able of producing good enough results, at least with the current dominant paradigm. Many execs may not feel that way, but that’s very much a FAFO situation, because unlike clothing, where poor quality may cause it to degrade faster, but that still takes time, the effects of degradation of quality in software are immediate. Of course, it’s very difficult to dislodge a dominant software product from its place in the market, because people are willing to tolerate a lot of quality degradation if the cost of switching to something else is high, but there is an upper limit of what people are willing to take, while there is no limit to how bad their software can get if companies keep riding the LLM bandwagon.