Thoughts from a younger generation..

I don't know. Peer review of human code is difficult, but good peer review of AI-written code is in my experience nearly impossible because, by construction, it always looks plausible, while often being wrong nonetheless. The result is demonically difficult to review properly, because none of the usual tells that code is wrong exist (a major tell for me that something needs closer inspection is code that somehow "feels uncertain", like it was rewritten multiple times while trying to get the bugs out of it: none of that with AI at all). It turns out most of those tells are testing for properties of *humans* writing code, not properties of the code itself.

It's like that thing with chess grandmasters -- if you hit them with normal boards they can manipulate them mentally with amazing speed, but if you hit them with random boards they're no better than merely good chess players, and make as many mistakes as well. So much of experience is grouping knowledge and memory into ever-larger chunks that can be handled by non-conscious mental processing; with AI-written code, much of that chunking is valueless because these are not human beings and (even when mimicking humans) they do things that humans do not do, throwing off the chunking and leaving you either scrambling in the dark or misled and missing errors in the flood of outwardly-plausible-looking code.

I find reviewing AI-written code so unpleasant and draining that honestly simply throwing it away and rewriting it by hand gets more tempting every time I do it. (Then having AI models review that, because they are very good at finding mistakes -- mistakes a human would also find if they had superhuman concentration, but of course nobody does.)