from your link :

A recent study ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6097646 ) uses the term “cognitive surrender” to describe the way humans tend to offload key critical thinking skills onto LLMs, even when the output is wrong.

Hey ! this is too much for my old tired brain.

It would be an interesting issue to see any LLM using code from an original GPLed source and use this to add something to a (big) commercial software.

Vibe coding / agentic workflows result in poorer code quality, and relaxed oversight practices.

This was much more true in 2025 than it is today. Recent models and harnesses are improving quality and implementing more strict development practices than were commonly used by human development teams.

If you want thorough Requirements and Design specifications, full automated test coverage and CI gating based on automated test outcomes, zero compiler warnings, etc. LLMs are doing those things now more by default without explicit and repeated prompting.

If you are choosing to not human review and test the outputs of the LLMs, that’s your practices slipping, not the LLM agents’.