But then it's not UB, and not the topic at hand. So I wouldn't call it "sort of true" for a statement about UB, because it doesn't apply to not-UB.
It's also different in a consteval context. But that doesn't make it less true outside consteval context.
Even if that's the case, it's not "undefined" in the sense that it doesn't permit "now your program is the attacker's program".
Here are two examples of where it's clear that the UB from the underlying C is still present and the optimization passes are still able to do things that wouldn't be possible without UB, like falling through functions and deleting safety checks inserted by the Fil-C runtime:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49677463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49681273
I'm not really convinced you can take LLVM and just flip a few poison bits off and remove a couple optimization passes and know that UB isn't going to explode in your face.