> They don't take shortcuts or resort to ugly hacks.

My experience is quite different

  > They have no problem writing tedious guards against edge cases that humans brush off. 

Ditto.

I have a hard time getting them to write small and flexible functions. Even with explicit instructions about how a specific routine should be done. (Really easy to produce in bash scripts as they seem to avoid using functions, but so do people, but most people suck at bash) IME they're fixated on the end goal and do not grasp the larger context (which is often implicit though I still find difficulty when I'm highly explicit. Which at that point it's usually faster to write myself)

It also makes me question context. Are humans not doing this because they don't think about it or because we've been training people to ignore things? How often do we hear "I just care that it works?" I've only heard that phrase from those that also love to talk about minimum viable products because... frankly, who is not concerned if it works? That's always been a disagreement about what is sufficient. Only very junior people believe in perfection. It's why we have sayings like "there's no solution more permanent than a temporary fix that works". It's the same people who believe tests are proof of correctness rather than a bound on correctness. The same people who read that last sentence and think I'm suggesting to not write tests or believe tests are useless.

I'd be concerned with the LLM operator quite a bit because of this. Subtle things are important when instructing LLMs. Subtle things in the prompts can wildly change the output