You can most definitely produce high-quality code via an LLM, particularly if you test your code aggressively and review it. Yes there are a lot of shoddy PRs, but that's nothing too new. The problem with LLMs is the amount of code they produce. More code = more garbage. But, that code velocity can be leveraged to increase quality. Through careful design and testing.

Ultimately, I would take LLM code + high-quality multi-strategy testing over human code with little to no tests. And some would say "well that's a false dichotomy". I disagree, before LLMs engineers didn't have the time or incentives to aggressively test. The tests either would not exist, or would be shitty unit tests intended to get an arbitrary coverage percentage. Now, we can write high-quality tests, differential testing, fuzzing, and more, in much less time.

I'd argue for most people LLM produces much better code than they would be able to write themselves.

> Anyone who thinks they can produce high quality code from an LLM is mistaken about how to judge code

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong.

I have 30+ years of professional development experience working on complex, very large-scale C++ code used by companies around the world.

I care deeply about code quality and always have. More than any other developer I've worked with in my 30+ year career. And I'm now using Claude Code to push the quality bar much higher.

But you have to learn how to use it properly. It's a tool. Quality doesn't happen automatically.

It's a big mistake, and frankly quite arrogant, to assume that because it doesn't work for you, it can't work for anyone else. Or that the rest of us must either be lying or incompetent.