IME the highest value (at the moment) is having an LLM integrated into the PR page, that reads your code + CI log, and effectively operates as a sanity check / semantic linter.
A common workflow for us: is Draft PR -> Passes CI (inclusive of an LLM 'review') -> Published -> Passes Human review -> Scheduled to merge
The goal is to get a higher margin of confidence that your code (1) will not blow up in production (2) faithfully does what it's trying to do.
The value of the LLM reviewer is maybe 80% in the first bucket and 20% in the second bucket, IME. It often catches bugs like "off by one" and "you meant this to be `if not x`, based on the flag name and behavior, not `if x`".
I haven't found it to be really useful so far, but it's also very little added work, so for now I keep on using it. If it saves my ass even just once, it will probably be worth it overall.
That's a common fallacy of safety by the way :)
It could very well "save your ass" just once (whatever that means) while costing you more in time, opportunity, effort, or even false sense of safety, to generate more harm than it will ultimately save you.
And it's not even safety critical code.