"Hallucination isn't a real problem, people will always scrutinize the generated code!"
Sigh...
Sigh...
But no real argument with the concern. An LLM will generate bugs, and that may be a reason this kind of thing never makes sense in practice (isn't that an argument against copilot, too, though?).
But yeah, I'm personally not comfortable with Copilot or its ilk, either.
And that thorough code review prevents bugs is, at best, a debatable assertion. See e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/code-re...
It finds _some_ bugs. CI/CD, and a massive investment in automated testing has probably had the largest impact in moving software quality forward. (See e.g. "Accelerate", Forsgren, Humble & Kim)
Code review is an excellent tool to socialize knowledge and train up more junior engineers, but in terms of preventing bugs, it's low-value.
Before we had the ability to just add a patch and let the user download it, the end result needed to be very solid, because once that disk was purchased and taken home, it was static.
Now less attention is paid to these things, because it's just assumed to be tomorrow's problem.