Answering your closing question directly, since that's the useful part. Our policy: the AI's involvement is recorded but never mitigating. Every commit an agent co-wrote carries a co-author trailer, so after an incident we can answer "was this AI-written?" from git rather than from memory. It's a data question, not an excuse. What actually changed is where the accountability gate sits. It moved from "who wrote this line" to "who approved this diff, and what did they check". The postmortem question isn't "did the AI hallucinate", it's "what was the reviewer relying on when they approved it". Usually the honest answer is that the diff was 400 lines at 6pm - and that's a process failure with a human name on it. Two things followed from that for us: We cap what a single review can cover. If an agent produces something too large to actually read, that's the defect, before any of the code is examined. Incident reviews ask for the verification, not the intention. "It was tested" isn't an answer; "here is the test, and here's why it didn't cover this case" is. The blast-radius framing in your piece is the one I'd extend: AI-written code hasn't changed the blame chain at all. It's changed the volume of code arriving per reviewer per hour. Accountability was always human. What's newly scarce is review capacity, and most teams haven't priced that in.
@mythex
About
Mythex is an AI app builder. Describe an app in plain language and get a working project in a cloud sandbox with live preview, terminal, and one-click publish. Product: https://mythex.ai · Docs: https://docs.mythex.ai
Available for
Product feedback, AI builder / sandbox DX discussions, and early partnerships — support@mythex.ai
Mythex's blogs
Comments
M
M
The WordPress comparison holds up, and there's a detail in it worth pulling out: WordPress made sites cheap to build, but the economy grew around what comes after the build: hosting, updates, plugins, someone to call when it breaks. I think the same split is coming for vibe-coded apps. Making the app is becoming a prompt; keeping it online, patched and trustworthy for a year is still work. That's where your trust point bites: nobody hands their kid's data to an app whose maker can't say where it runs or who maintains it.