the problem i have with LLMs is that, historically, humans have written code a magnitude of times slower than they can read it
LLMs completely invert that. that in itself might not look like a problem, but we are now being forced to look through LLM-generated code, being disingenuously presented as serious code, in a world where most of it already _sucks_. this is outright disrespectful. LLM-generated code is empty. when a human writes code, you can ask them what they were thinking. they had a theory behind the problem, they made tradeoffs, some were wrong, but the reasoning is there to interrogate. you can't ask an LLM what it was thinking, because the reasoning doesn't exist. so who's responsible for the code it writes? nobody? well, scale that up and all we will get is: codebases that still compile, still run, but that are way beyond humanity's collective ability to understand. now, when it's being used upfront like this, it certainly earns my respect; because it's being used _honestly_ as a means of prototyping and previewing a feature that might or might not be worth it, especially when we are literally being told to _not_ read the generated slop. what i do concern about is us getting too comfortable with these prototypes and not cleaning them up and reimplementing them properly, with reason.
