I think the problem is that the grader has to run your code in their head. That's a whole different problem.

I'd say compared to just typing the code on a disconnected computer: Not worth it.

The grader has to grade N exams.

How do you think English, philosophy, or history tests get graded?

Or were you just assuming your experiences (large university, I'm guessing) are universal?

There are many, many colleges that have no grad students. Period. They are undergraduate colleges.

Expecting any college or university to just be able to scale up the amount of manpower required to grade their classes/exams by a large multiple is absurdly unrealistic. I assure you that most existing colleges do have plenty of resources to effectively evaluate individual students' outputs, if they don't have to assume that anything submitted digitally is written by LLMs.

That new requirement is a massive change to how they operate, and it's incredibly rude and short-sighted to be dismissive and contemptuous of institutions that have trouble adjusting to it.

That Computer Science is somehow a privileged subject where the exam grading must be automated is elitism of the highest degree.

So in some theoretical hiring example, if I have to choose between two candidates: one which is really good at keeping the code in the head and the other who is less good at that, but who is very skilled at using programming tools like advanced type systems or formal verification tools, then I'd prefer the latter.

Of course in practice, I would of course take a student that I knew had passed their paper test with their own knowledge over a student that likely ran their digital test through an LLM.