Well, I'm not a code monkey, between dyslexia and an aging brain. But if it's anything like the tiny bit of coding I used to be able to do (back in the days of basic and pascal), you don't really have to pore over every single line. Only time that's needed is when something is broken. Otherwise, you're scanning to keep oversight, which is no different than reviewing a human's code that you didn't write.

Look at it like this; we automated assembly of machines a long time ago. It had flaws early on that required intense supervision. The only difference here on a practical level is about how the damn things learned in the first place. Automating code generation is way more similar to that than llms that generate text or images that aren't logical by nature.

If the code used to train the models was good, what it outputs will be no worse in scale than some high school kid in an ap class stepping into their first serious challenges. It will need review, but if the output is going to be open source to begin with, it'll get that review even if the project maintainers slip up.

And being real, lutris has been very smooth across the board while using the generated code so far. So if he gets lazy, it could go downhill; but that could happen if he gets lazy with his own code.

Another concept that I am more familiar with, that does relate. Writing fiction can take months. Editing fiction usually takes days, and you can still miss stuff (my first book has typos and errors to this day because of the aforementioned dyslexia and me not having a copy editor).

My first project back in the eighties in basic took me three days to crank out during the summer program I was in. The professor running the program took an hour to scan and correct that code.

Maybe I'm too far behind the various languages, but I really can't see it being a massively harder proposition to scan and edit the output of an llm.