I find LLM generated code ends up pushing review/maintenance burden onto others. It "looks" right at first glance, and passes superficial tests, so it's easy to get merged. But then as you build on top of it, you realize the foundations are hastily put together, so a lot of it needs to be rewritten. Fine for throwaway or exploratory work, but heaven help you if you're working in a project where people use LLMs to "fix" bugs generated by previous LLM generated code.
So yes it does increase "velocity" for the person A who can get away with using it. But then the decrease in velocity for person B trying to build on top of that code is never properly tracked. It's like a game of hot potato, if you want to game the metrics you better be the one working on greenfield code (although I suppose maintenance work has never been looked at favorably in performance review; but now the cycle of code rot is accelerated)
So yes it does increase "velocity" for the person A who can get away with using it. But then the decrease in velocity for person B trying to build on top of that code is never properly tracked. It's like a game of hot potato, if you want to game the metrics you better be the one working on greenfield code (although I suppose maintenance work has never been looked at favorably in performance review; but now the cycle of code rot is accelerated)