My foresight is that when you compensate bad developers with process, measurements and QA, the software breaks when exposed to the real world, which has a habit of doing things you didn't think about.
Maybe an user can open two tabs and manage to submit two incompatible forms. Or a little gap in an API validations' allows a clever hacker to take over other users' accounts. Or a race condition corrupts data and causes a crash loop.
Maybe some are OK with that level of brokenness, but I don't see how software can be robust unless you go into the code and understand what is logically possible. My experience is that AI models aren't very good at this.
That is exactly why you need good QA and not developers doing their own QA. The role of a good developer is threefold: features, defects, and refactors. 80-90% of your product improvements should live in your refactors and not feature creep.