Given how many security vulnerabilities SOTA models are able to catch in software we've considered some of the most mature ever written, they can most certainly be more reliable in certain contexts and when used certain ways.
Making them review LLM-generated code will probably catch some errors and vulnerabilities, but could well leave there insanely dangerous hallucinated code.
Meanwhile I've been dealing with so much human slop (including mine) for the last 25 years that what comes out of LLMs in 2026 is an absolute relief.
You don't see what's going to happen if you don't even have a look at it?
I feel like I'm in some candid camera
Current LLM output is so much better than what I or my colleagues used to write, on every levels. Better readability when properly steered, better performance, better security, everything. Frankly this year has been a humbling experience.
> Do I live on a different universe ?
I guess...
> You don't see what's going to happen if you don't even have a look at it?
Who said we don't even look at it ?
You are aware that howwer much better to your hellish experience the average LLM output is, it's going to spit brain-dead, extremely dangerous nonsense sometimes?
Again, in my experience it's very rare (and rarer than at the beginning of this year). What was your experience with these tools ?
I'm not OP, and I'm not defending the point of not looking at the code at all or not doing any review. I do think checking each line is definitely not necessary and the amount of verification should be adapted to your domain.
How can you verify the code if you don't verify "each line"?
You can maybe check them with less care, yes.
But even for the most frivolous domains, in most cases malicious software can cause a lot of damage (for on example on older systems), so it is irresponsible to not check it, in my opinion.
There'd be a debate to have about why LLMs are threatening to some engineers while they are empowering to others. I'm having a blast producing the best output I ever done while some of my colleagues are suffering to the point of thinking about changing careers. There must be deep psychological reasons to this.
For open source libraries there's a chance that some of its users reviewed the code, for commercial libraries there's the legal risks holding them from being excessively careless.
LLM code instead can only be looked upon by you.
And, until a short while ago we were worrying of how to reduce the risks placed by libraries, with dependency cooldowns etc. Now we decided that we can ship random code seen by absolutely no one?
> There'd be a debate to have about why LLMs are threatening to some engineers
You're claiming that if an engineer doesn't like LLMs it's because he feels threatened by them?
There definitely are at least two very different groups of software developers: one that enjoys writing code, and the mechanicality and predictability of it, and one that maybe doesn't love developing, and for sure cares more about making a product, and maybe about the money that you can earn from it.
This is the purely psychological difference, but then there's a group of developers who feels the responsibility for what they do, realizes what effects their software can have and does what it can to protect its users; and another group that doesn't care too much, and considers their user's fault to decide to use their software, and to possibly harm other people through its use.
And, if your capabilities are limited, or your company forces you to go too fast, for sure the average LLM output can be better than your average code.
Not all LLMs fans are like that, of course, many just have misconceptions and don't realize the risks.
All your points so far boil down to the idea that the average LLM output is worse than the average engineer output. Sorry, it's not.
I hope you're not a real engineer, or at least that you don't really think what you've been saying.