You sound like a webdev, e.g. the "let's just install 1000s of unvetted external dependencies" is nowhere else nearly as extreme as in web development land.

I don't think that's accurate. Until recently the code we rely on wasn't blindly trusted. People wrote and QA'd it. We may not have reviewed it personally, but that's one of the functions we outsource to software maintainers or "manufacturers".

I'm not "blindly trusting" code on my computing devices. I'm trusting the vendors / maintainers to do their job.

Until very recently the norm has been that the vast majority of code had human eyes and hands on it.

Edit:

The owners of those human eyes and hands had some type of accountability (either reputationally, in the case of free/open-source software, or occupationally, in the case of proprietary software).

The LLM has no accountability as to the output it generates.

The companies who make the LLMs also seem to have very little accountability, too. We've assumed a "blame the victim" stance when people use LLM-generated output in some inappropriate ways (legal briefs with "hallucinated" citations, articles "written" by LLMs). Whether that's the right location for accountability to be placed isn't for me to say, but that seems to be how it is.

I'm not sure that we're applying accountability to LLM-generated code in the same way we are for, say, the LLM-generated legal brief.