there is certainly code that sucks; but the article strikes me as someone conflating "code that sucks" with "code that is complex and big and takes a while to get used to".

I have found that a lot of the "massive amounts of bad code" left behind by "rockstar developers" is actually just a long slow drip of added complexity in the face of changing requirements. and I find that people think they're "refactoring the code for readability" when a lot of times, they are actually just "rewriting the code and therefore understanding it in that process".

tl;dr: "Slow down and think about what you're doing when using an LLM." Saved you five minutes.

I was expecting a lot more, or a worked example, or _something_ to that effect. 90% of the text is the author complaining and defining the problem, then a hand-wavy vague solution is presented in the penultimate paragraph. Barely relevant or useful, really.