[kjksf]

I have no issue with with code generated by e.g. Claude because it's not "slop".

On average, it's probably better than the code I would write.

I say "on average" because AI doesn't make stupid mistakes, doesn't invert logical conditions. I know I do. Which I eventually fix, but it's better to not make them in the first place, hence "on average".

And in cases that AI doesn't generate code up to my quality standards, I re-prompt it until it does. Or fix it myself.

I'm not a hapless victim of AI. I'm a supervisor. I operate a machine that generates good code most of the time but not all of the time. I'm there to spot and correct the "not all of the time" cases.

[xienze]

But that's my point. LLMs generate good prose "most of the time", certainly better than most people are capable of doing. Yet we frequently react with disgust when we see tell-tale signs of LLM-generated text in articles. Why? Because it indicates the person was probably too lazy to write it themselves and are simply chucking a half-formed thought over the wall? Why don't we hold generated code to the same standard?