> Imagine code passes your rigorous review. How do you know that it wasn’t from an LLM?

That's not what I'm saying (and it's a strawman; yes, presumably some LLM code would escape review and I wouldn't know it's from an LLM, though I find that unlikely, given…) — what I'm saying is of LLM generated code that is reviewed, what is the quality & correctness of the reviewed code? And it's resoundingly (easily >90%) crap.

Obviously we can't sample from unknown-authorship … nor am I; I'm sampling problems that I and others run through an LLM, and the output thereof.

The other facet of this point is that I believe a lot of the craze that users using the LLM have is driven by them not looking closely at the output; if you're just deriving code from the LLM, chucking it over the wall, and calling it a day (as was the case from one of the examples in the comment above) — you're perceiving the LLM as being useful, when it fact it is leaving bugs that you're either not attributing to it, someone else is cleaning up (again, that was the case in the above example), etc.

> what I'm saying is of LLM generated code that is reviewed, what is the quality & correctness of the reviewed code? And it's resoundingly (easily >90%) crap.

What makes you so sure that none of the resoundingly non-crap that you have reviewed was not produced by LLM?

It’s like saying you only like homemade cookies not ones from the store. But you may be gleefully chowing down on cookies that you believe are homemade because you like them (so they must be homemade) without knowing they actually came from the store.

> What makes you so sure that none of the resoundingly non-crap that you have reviewed was not produced by LLM?

From the post you're replying to:

> Obviously we can't sample from unknown-authorship … nor am I; I'm sampling problems that I and others run through an LLM, and the output thereof.

Yes, believe it or not I’m able to read.

> I'm sampling problems that I and others run through an LLM

This is not what’s happening unless 100% of the problems they’ve sampled (even outside of this fun little exercise) have been run through an LLM.

They’re pretending like it doesn’t matter that they’re looking at untold numbers of other problems and are not aware whether those are LLM generated or not.

It sounds like that's what's happening. The LLM code that they have reviewed has been, to their standards, subpar.

> The LLM code that they have reviewed has been, to their standards, subpar.

No. The accurate way to say this is:

“The code that they have reviewed that they know came from an LLM has been, to their standards, subpar.”