An uncomfortable truth about the era of LLM code is that machine produced code is, on average, quite a bit more secure than human code.

I think it's more likely to be the same as average human-written code; which is what they were trained on, after all.

Unsurprising to those of us that has been screaming from the rooftops that human code reviews were barely catching anything in your typical corporate environment. The majority of the value was pointing out missing tests, because breaking bugs got past human eyeballs on a regular basis, even in very good companies.

It's not that the LLM code is that great, but that many overestimated the human code and the human review.