I thought the fallacy bit was tongue-in-cheek. They're not actually arguing from authority in the article.

The system you describe appears to treat programmers as mere cogs. Programmers do not simply write and iterate code as dictated by POs. That's a terrible system for all but the simplest of products. We could implement that system, then lose the ability to make broad architectural improvements, effectively adapt the model to new circumstances, or fix bugs that the model cannot.

> The system you describe appears to treat programmers as mere cogs

Not at all, it simply addresses key issues raised. That they cannot have a theory of the program because they are reading it and not actually writing it - so have them write code, fix problems and iterate. Have them communicate with others to get more understanding of the "why".

> . Programmers do not simply write and iterate code as dictated by POs.

Communicating with POs is not the same as writing code directed by POs.

Oh, I think I see. You're imagining LLMs that learn from PO feedback as they go?

This can be as simple as giving them search over communication with a PO, and giving them a place to store information that's searchable.

How good they are at this is a different matter but the article claims it is impossible because they don't work on the code and build an understanding like people do and cannot gain that by just reading code.