I mean ... most code out there is pretty bad, so LLM assistants contributing pretty bad code just keeps the mean where it is. And obviously it has to be, how can anybody expect an LLM to produce output with quality that's higher than its training input? Expecting that is appealing to magic or some consciousness that doesn't actually exist or just plain anthropomorphising.

If you are working at a place where that quality level is standard -- and let's face it, a large number of companies produce average or below-average quality code (by definition) -- then using an LLM assistant isn't that bad. At least if such an assistant doesn't have some extra flaws beyond producing the best summary of its training data, which is exactly what an LLM does. It actually justifiably replaces developers in such an average-or-below place. But if you are aiming for the top end of the quality scale then there is no way this can be achieved by LLM output. Purely on principle.

This shouldn't even be a controversial opinion. I'm quite surprised every time this is questioned or even just debated.