I take it to mean that the code quality deserves more scrutiny because you can't guarantee what it has provided is quality code, without reviewing it first.

The same applies to brand new devs — it's normal to apply a little more scrutiny because they simply don't have the experience to make the right decisions as confidently (or frequently) as someone more senior.

It's an analogy and the natural fact that output reflects experience and practice over time.

Reminds me of a Facebook thread I saw a few days ago, on the topic of 3D printing houses. All the comments were angry dismissive "hurr durr that's clearly poor quality work" with no further justification of their position, and it struck me how similar the overall energy was to the "all AI image generation is bad and shit and is also heinous immoral theft and you're literally the worst person in the world and yous should feel bad" sort of raging that you see any time someone posts some SD or Midjourney or whatever pic of a cute puppy riding a tricycle. These comments originate from people who've spent their lives learning skills that are now largely replaceable by a few gigs of download and a Python tutorial. No wonder they're upset.

Right...because requiring developers to actually grasp the code they're outputting is gatekeeping.

If you want to pretend the rush to AI won't lead to more incompetent chefs in the kitchen than we already have (which is too many as it stands) then feel free, but acting like it's some kind of "party" people are being kept out of is daft.

Standards exist for a reason, not just to make people feel bad for not meeting them.