I think it's also less about the bugs and more about the fact that the "thought" behind it is less predictable. If I have a random developer implement some basi

I think it's also less about the bugs and more about the fact that the "thought" behind it is less predictable. If I have a random developer implement some basic function, I can have some confidence that it will cover all of the "normal" and obvious use cases for our shared intended use of this code. Because of how an LLM approaches it, I have to be more careful about what assumptions it may have made, and which edge cases it decided to have guards around, since there's often a lot of "invisible" context and state baked into even simple tasks. How a human would name a variable or a function reveals something about how they conceived of its use and purpose. How an LLM names things doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the code that surrounds it. This can make it harder to reason about the code at a time or skill distance.