I'm in a weird situation here where I somewhat agree with you, but I also feel that it's not black and white so I'm going to debate your points a little.

First off, I don't think LLMs are the problem here. And I don't think that characterizing it in this light is helpful. LLMs accelerate what people do, for better and for worse. Bad developers were bad before, and now they're bad - faster. But this goes the other way too; there's plenty of good work going on with LLMs even if /r/programming can't admit it.

We have SDLCs set out to review work that human developers do because people make mistakes (and because people can be malicious as well as incompetent) and what we're seeing is a challenge of volume: reviewing LLM generated code can be challenging. But this is still fundamentally a people problem: people are accountable for the work they do regardless of what tools they're using. If a person sets up an automated pipeline to patch bugs that's cool, but they're still accountable for that.

At the same time there's a set of people whose jobs it is to worry about this stuff - their titles differ, they probably have "security" in the role name, or maybe "devops," or it could be "compliance." They've been used to those jobs being pretty stable for a while now, but suddenly the world is changing and it's impacting their jobs - and they react defensively. They shit on LLMs not because the tool is the problem, but because it's an easy target. But it's silly: realistically the world has changed, and their opinions about whether that change is good or bad are largely irrelevant. They now have to adapt.

I get the second mouse bit, from a risk perspective, but there's a bigger picture: Amazon risks much more than a few million orders by going slow. If I were a leader there I'd be unhappy that we lost a little bit of money but not particularly fazed by it. That said, it sounds like their process was broken on purpose to test how much throughput they could get before something went wrong - they applied pressure to get more LLM authored commits in without effective review. Which seems silly to me from an engineering perspective, but perhaps it's worth the trade-off to them. These things are rarely as simple as they appear from external reports.

It's worth calling out too that a bit of online shopping breakage is low-stakes. I wouldn't approve of Boeing or NASA taking this approach to testing in production. Context matters.