As much as I've agreed with the author's other posts/takes, I find myself resisting this one:<p>> I'll finish this rant with a related observation: I keep seeing people say “if I have to review every line of code an LLM writes, it would have been faster to write it myself!”<p>> Those people are loudly declaring that they have under-invested in the crucial skills of reading, understanding and reviewing code written by other people.<p>No, that does not follow.<p>1. Reviewing depends on what you know about the expertise (and trust) of the person writing it. Spending most of your day reviewing code written by familiar human co-workers is very different from the same time reviewing anonymous contributions.<p>2. Reviews are not just about the code's potential mechanics, but inferring and comparing the intent and approach of the writer. For LLMs, that ranges between non-existent and schizoid, and writing it yourself skips that cost.<p>3. Motivation is important, for some developers that means learning, understanding and creating. Not wanting to do code reviews all day doesn't mean you're <i>bad</i> at them. Also, reviewing an LLM's code has no social aspect.<p>However you do it, somebody else should still be reviewing the change afterwards.