This is not unique to the age of LLMs. PR reviews are often shallow because the reviewer is not giving the contribution the amount of attention and understanding it deserves. With LLMs, the volume of code has only gotten larger but those same LLMs can help review the code being written. The current code review agents are surprisingly good at catching errors. Better than most reviewers. We'll soon get to a point where…
This seems silly to me. In most cases, the least amount of work you can possibly do is logically describe the process you want and the boundaries, and run that logic over the input data. In other words, coding.
The idea that we should, to avoid coding or reading code, come up with a whole new process to keep generated code on track - would almost certainly take more effort than just getting the logical incantations correct the first time.