I think there is a subjective difference. When a human builds dogshit at least you know they put some effort and the hours in.

When I'm reading piles of LLM slop, I know that just reading it is already more effort than it took to write. It feels like I'm being played.

This is entirely subjective and emotional. But when someone writes something with an LLM in 5 seconds and asks me to spend hours reviewing...fuck off.

If you are heavily using LLMs, you need to change the way you think about reviews

I think most people now approach it as: Dev0 uses an LLM to build a feature super fast, Dev1 spends time doing a in depth review.

Dev0 built it, Dev1 reviewed it. And Dev0 is happy because they used the tool to save time!

But what should happen is that Dev0 should take all that time they saved coding and reallocate it to the in depth review.

The LLM wrote it, Dev0 reviewed it, Dev1 double-reviewed it. Time savings are much less, but there’s less context switching between being a coder and a reviewer. We are all reviewers now all the time

Your comment doesn’t address what I said and instead finds a new reason that it’s invalid because “reviewing code from a machine system is beneath me”

Get over yourself