Agree 100%. That's why I have two buckets - codebases where I scrutinize and approve every line, and AI slop buckets where I look at nothing.
And n'er the twain shall meet.
Beyond curiosity/education, there's no point in reviewing an AI-generated codebase unless you're going to fix, own, and maintain it. If not, define your API boundary layer well and treat the other side as a black box.
In
NightDriverLED.com, for example, the ESP32 code is entirely handcrafted, reviewed, and sacrosanct. The UI code is 100% AI generated. And it has NO special knowledge or insight into the API's implementation.
I treat the AI code as mutable, discardable, and regenerable from the prompt at any time, with no recourse other than reverting to an older version in git.
Good contracts (specs) and good tests make for good AI components, but inspection only leads to madness.
For a lot of us truly obsessive developers, the issue is not "I am no longer curious" but "human review cannot keep up with codegen scaling"
The true power users are (like me) building static analysis tools to deterministically enforce the things they look for during code review