I'm a bit 50/50 on this. Generally I agree, how are you supposed to review it otherwise? Blindly accepting whatever the LLM tells you or gives you is bound to create trouble in the future, you still need to understand and think about what the thing you're building is, and how to design/architect it.

I love making games, but I'm also terrible at math. Sometimes, I end up out of my depth, and sometimes it could take me maybe a couple of days to solve something that probably would be trivial for a lot of people. I try my best to understand the fundamentals and the theory behind it, but also not get lost in rabbit holes, but it's still hard, for whatever reason.

So I end up using LLMs sometimes to write small utility functions used in my games for specific things. It takes a couple of minutes. I know exactly what I want to pass into it, and what I want to get back, but I don't necessarily understand 100% of the math behind it. And I think I'm mostly OK with this, as long as I can verify that the expected inputs get the expected outputs, which I usually do with unit or E2E tests.

Would I blindly accept information about nuclear reactors, another topic I don't understand much about? No, I'd still take everything a LLM outputs with a "grain of probability" because that's how they work. Would I blindly accept it if I can guarantee that for my particular use case, it gives me what I expect from it? Begrudgingly, yeah, because I just wanna create games and I'm terrible at math.