Jim and Toby are interviewing Darryl Philbin for the position of manager at Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Jim asks what Darryl would do to resolve a conflict between two employees in the warehouse Darryl already managed. "I'll answer that, Jim. I would use it as an opportunity to teach... about actions... and consequences of actions".

That's the answer you just gave me. Good note! (Darryl didn't get the job.)

You're dodging my point. If you are managing a team where people are using LLMs to generate pull requests full of "crap" code (your word), you have a mismanaged team, and would with or without the LLMs, because on a well-managed team people don't create PRs full of crap code.

I'm fine if you want to say LLMs are dangerous tools in the hands of unseasoned developers. Fine, you can have a rule where only trusted developers get to use them. That actually seems pretty sane!

But a trustworthy developer using an LLM isn't going to be pushed by the LLM into creating "crap" PRs, because the LLM doesn't make the PRs, the developer does. If the developer isn't reading the code the LLM is producing, they're not doing their job.

Sometimes you get people saying "ok but reading that code is work so how is the LLM saving any time", which is something you could also say about adding any human developer to a team; their code also has to get reviewed.

So help me understand how your concerns here cohere.