They are collaborating by making sure they’ve read and understood the code that was generated, and usually edited it, too. Sometimes, when e.g. making an ad-ho

They are collaborating by making sure they’ve read and understood the code that was generated, and usually edited it, too. Sometimes, when e.g. making an ad-hoc visualization or debugging tool, one may emphasize that they just had AI generate it and didn’t read into the details. Occasionally it makes sense. But if someone is making PRs without disclosing their lack of understanding of them because of generating most of it and not making sure everything is correct, that seems like a cultural issue, primarily. But I suppose you can start having such people walk you through their PRs, which should at least reveal their lack of understanding, if it’s in fact the case. Point is, this is imo not an experience inherent to LLM usage, and there’s also not much point reviewing LLM prompts because of the strong non-determinism involved.