Everything changed in the past 6 months and coding LLMs went from being OK-ish to insanely good. People also got better at using them.

Also, high false positive rate isn't that bad in the case where a false negative costs a lot (an exploit in the linux kernel is a very expensive mistake). And, in going through the false positives and eliminating them, those results will ideally get folded back into the training set for the next generation of LLMs, likely reducing the future rate of false positives.

> Everything changed in the past 6 months and coding LLMs went from being OK-ish to insanely good. People also got better at using them.

I hear this literally every 6 months :)