> A human must verify everything an LLM presents as fact. Everything.

I've thought about this for quite some time now.

No. A human doesn't need to verify everything. And the argument is really simple: stochastic.

Think of self-driving cars: We can show today - based on evidence and real data - that self-driving cars are safer than human drivers. That's a fact and the consequences are clear, more self-driving cars, less human-driven cars, less accidents, less hurt people, less dead people.

Are the cars 100% safe and NEVER make a mistake? No. But they don't need to. Nothing is ever 100% (in the real world).

Now back to AI for software creation. "Review is the bottleneck because EVERYTHING must be judged by a human." No. It doesn't. We just need to build AI review systems, that will do reviews better than (or at least as good as) humans. The human review quality bar is far below 100%. Far far far. If we can show (likely in the next 12-24 months I think) that AI review quality is consistently above the human review quality - again, based on evidence, based on real data - then that's it, then there's no good reason to have humans review the code.

Yes, there will be another layer in the system, another level of abstraction that will/must end at the human boundary.