> They don't take shortcuts or resort to ugly hacks.

That hasn't, universally, been my experience. Sometimes the code is fine. Sometimes it is functional, but organized poorly, or does things in a very unusual way that is hard to understand. And sometimes it produces code that might work sometimes but misses important edge cases and isn't robust at all, or does things in an incredibly slow way.

> They have no problem writing tedious guards against edge cases that humans brush off.

The flip side of that is that instead of coming up with a good design that doesn't have as many edge cases, it will write verbose code that handles many different cases in similar, but not quite the same ways.

> They also keep comments up to date and obsess over tests.

Sure but they will often make comments or tests that aren't actually useful, or modify tests to succeed instead of fixing the code.

One significant danger of LLMs is that the quality of the output is higly variable and unpredictable.

That's ok, if you have someone knowledgeable reviewing and correcting it. But if you blindly trust it, because it produced decent results a few times, you'll probably be sorry.