We get stuck reviewing the output assembly when it's broken, and that does happen from time to time. The reason that doesn't happen often is that generation of assembly follows strict rules, which people have tried their best to test. That's not the behavior we're going to get out of a LLM.
Re:Are LLMs not getting better?
by contextfree on Friday March 13, 2026 @02:20PM
(#47367769)
Yes, prompts aren't analogous to higher-level code, they're analogous to wizards or something like that which were always rightly viewed with suspicion.
It is therefore not important whether some intermediate version of that low-level code was completely impossible to understand.
It is not so with LLM-written code that's being discussed. More often than not, it does need to be understood and maintained by someone or something.
These days, I mainly focus on two things in LLM code reviews:
1. Making sure unit tests have good coverage of expected behaviours.
2. Making sure the model is making sound architectural decisions, to avoid accumulating tech debt that'll need to be paid back later.