LLMs absolutely produce reams of hard-to-debug code. It's a real problem.
But "Teams that care about quality will take the time to review and understand LLM-generated code" is already failing. Sounds nice to say, but you can't review code being generated faster than you can read it. You either become a bottleneck (defeats the point) or you rubber-stamp it (creates the debt). Pick your poison.
Everyone's trying to bolt review processes onto this. That's the wrong layer. That's how you'd coach a junior dev, who learns. AI doesn't learn. You'll be arguing about the same 7 issues forever.
These things are context-hungry but most people give them nothing. "Write a function that fixes my problem" doesn't work, surprise surprise.
We need different primitives. Not "read everything the LLM wrote very carefully" ways to feed it the why, the motivation, the discussion and prior art. Otherwise yeah, we're building a mountain of code nobody understands.
But "Teams that care about quality will take the time to review and understand LLM-generated code" is already failing. Sounds nice to say, but you can't review code being generated faster than you can read it. You either become a bottleneck (defeats the point) or you rubber-stamp it (creates the debt). Pick your poison.
Everyone's trying to bolt review processes onto this. That's the wrong layer. That's how you'd coach a junior dev, who learns. AI doesn't learn. You'll be arguing about the same 7 issues forever.
These things are context-hungry but most people give them nothing. "Write a function that fixes my problem" doesn't work, surprise surprise.
We need different primitives. Not "read everything the LLM wrote very carefully" ways to feed it the why, the motivation, the discussion and prior art. Otherwise yeah, we're building a mountain of code nobody understands.