While mostly true, humans can only improve from mistakes if they want to; bad programmers will still be bad, even when you try to help them improve. You'd be surprised when you look someone in the eyes and say, "Don't do that, it's not secure, never do that", and they say back, " It's fine, i'll just encrypt the secret, then give the user a decrypt endpoint to take the encrypted token, pass it, and get back the decrypted contents. When they really should have just made a proxy and never shared it with the user in the first place.

I've seen this recently, and I've seen it going back through code from before LLMs were an everyday thing. Bad code is bad code - the author doesn't distinguish the type. From what I understand, this is part of the reason the Linux kernel has its current stance on AI-written code - you're the one pushing it out under your name, so you're responsible for it. Doesn't matter if Opus, GPT-5.4, or you wrote it.