> Cliche-driven, over-metaphor'd, statistically-average purple-purpose _content_

If this is expected from LLM generated prose, why don't we expect LLM generated code to exhibit the same qualities?

> It's sad, really, that we're many years into this entire thing and it still can't produce something that doesn't have my eyes drifting from the page

It's great. Human creativity is still king despite the attempts to reduce it to a few algorithms for talentless hacks to exploit with the click of a button.

Who but the sociopath would hope to supplant human creativity with a machine they control? I wish your position wasn't so widespread in these parts.

> If this is expected from LLM generated prose, why don't we expect LLM generated code to exhibit the same qualities?

That's the fun part, it does! I think people who don't pay much attention to the code they ship don't see it, but LLM written code has a lot of the same problems that LLM written prose does. It's repetitive, muddled, and relies too much on crutches - constant boilerplate and pointless, inaccurate comments.

What might be bad for prose (predictable, boring) might be desirable for code. Maybe that's why LLMs work well for writing things read by computers, but not so much for things read by people.