I disagree with the characterization as "slop", if the tools are used well. There's no reason the user has to submit something that looks fundamentally different from what they would handwrite.

You can't simply throw the generated code over the wall to the reviewer. You have to put in the work to understand what's being proposed and why.

Lastly, an extremely important part of this is the improvement cycle. The tools will absolutely do suboptimal things sometimes, usually pretty similar to a human who isn't an expert in the codebase. Many people just accept what comes out. It's very important to identify the gaps between the first draft, what was submitted for code review, and the mergeable final product and use that information to improve the prompt architecture and automation.

What I see is a tool that takes a lot of investment to pay off, but where the problems for operationalizing it are very tractable, and the opportunity is immense.

I'm worried about many other aspects, but not the basic utility.