The Linux kernel gets a ton of PRs constantly. My big issue with LLM code is that it is really good at appearing to be thought out, but actually reverse engineering it can reveal major mistakes.

A good reviewer should still catch them, but it takes longer since the "code smell" is different. Humans will usually make consistent simple mistakes while LLMs will sometimes use advanced patterns to make the same mistake.

The fact that these take longer to review, are usually much longer in general, and are appearing at an incredible pace (1hr to generate, 1 day to review) creates a backlog that becomes unbearable to review.

A lot of open source projects have banned them for this reason, but the ones that do allow them tend to use LLM reviewers to help clear the backlog which is a whole different ouroboros of an issue.

It occurs eventually once the slop enjoying programmer is de-skilled where they only glance at AI output and start losing track of the bigger picture.

The most obvious one for code is the "comment above a line of code that describes exactly what the code does"

# This does A with B as an input
DoA(B)

afaik LLM code is usually unnecessarily verbose and tries to include libraries that typically wouldn’t be necessary.

But also it seems that after writing work emails, writing code seems to be the thing LLMs do best.

Yes, there is a flavor to LLM code. Generally there is poor structure and comprehensibility, the more code slides right off your brain when you read it despite there being lots of comments the more likely it is to be slop. On the other hand, bad human written code tends to have a feeling of impenetrability that's often accompanied by a lack of comments.