sure; my point is that reviewing llm code and human code is not the same thing, even when we put aside the sheer volume and velocity - so the masterclass review skills of Torvalds of human coda are not necessarily as good guardrail as the grandparent suggests.

edit: to add a metaphore - a top class swimmer is not necessarily a top class runner and vice versa

score 1 · canonical

procedurally these may be similar, but my point is that LLMs get to the goal differently than humans, so the review skills are not obviously transferable between different types of authors. corpo logic may be alien, but that applies to outcomes, not means of coding.

score 1 · canonical

I can’t comment that he will fail to review LLM code, but code churned by LLMs has different failure modes than human written code, so reviewing it is different. Notably LLMs easily use good terms and the code looks plausible, disregarding whether it is correct or wrong; while sloppy (no pun intended) code made by a person has often tells – i.e noticeable habits, wrong terms pointing out that they are new to the domain etc.

score 1 · canonical