Ha, I just want to clarify that the quoted text isn't actually from the README or something like that, I'm not quite that crazy.

But no real argument with the concern. An LLM will generate bugs, and that may be a reason this kind of thing never makes sense in practice (isn't that an argument against copilot, too, though?).

As far as I understand this is worse, because it'll regenerate everything in the file every time, right?

But yeah, I'm personally not comfortable with Copilot or its ilk, either.

Thorough code review is why we as an industry stopped shipping bugs.

We, as an industry, didn't stop shipping bugs. (Small example: https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/releases)

And that thorough code review prevents bugs is, at best, a debatable assertion. See e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/code-re...

It finds _some_ bugs. CI/CD, and a massive investment in automated testing has probably had the largest impact in moving software quality forward. (See e.g. "Accelerate", Forsgren, Humble & Kim)

Code review is an excellent tool to socialize knowledge and train up more junior engineers, but in terms of preventing bugs, it's low-value.

The parent comment is sarcastic

Maybe. I can't read OPs mind, and it's a common enough trope throughout the industry that I figured adding some evidence could be useful.

Sorry I thought that was too obvious to warrant an /s but I suppose not.

I'm fairly certain we ship far more bugs now than we ever did.

Before we had the ability to just add a patch and let the user download it, the end result needed to be very solid, because once that disk was purchased and taken home, it was static.

Now less attention is paid to these things, because it's just assumed to be tomorrow's problem.

Where's this from? What are you quoting?

Where is the above quote from? If I search for it online I can only find your comment here.

Paraphrasing the people defending Copilot and ChatGPT when they came out.

It would be nice to make it clear that you're not actually quoting someone when you use quotation marks to paraphrase them. My concern is that it can come across as a bit of straw-manning otherwise.

Fair, though it's too late to edit now.