> Legacy code is written by humans, and when you read stuff written by humans you can anticipate what their intent was because you are a human as well.
Well, no. This is both technically categorically false (because you can only "anticipate" something in advance, and the intent is in the past by the time you are reading the code, though you might in principal infer their intent), and often practically false even when read with "infer" in place of "anticipate", as it is quite common for the intent of human-written code to be non-obvious, except in the sense of "the purpose of a system is what it does", in which sense AI-written code is not particularly more opaque.
Well, no. This is both technically categorically false (because you can only "anticipate" something in advance, and the intent is in the past by the time you are reading the code, though you might in principal infer their intent), and often practically false even when read with "infer" in place of "anticipate", as it is quite common for the intent of human-written code to be non-obvious, except in the sense of "the purpose of a system is what it does", in which sense AI-written code is not particularly more opaque.