I think this characterization misses the feedback loop that exists. The OP is not sitting in a one-way flow of info: LLM->human->code but rather a the c

I think this characterization misses the feedback loop that exists. The OP is not sitting in a one-way flow of info: LLM->human->code but rather a the center of a feedback loop: LLM<-->human<-->code. Human-is-the-loop, not human-in-the-loop. Each iteration of that loop is fully driven by the human. Human creativity is involved in both directions. I'd argue that anytime we drive an LLM through more than one turn (and/or more than one session) we are really doing a human-is-the-loop thing. The OP's extreme case of begin the only thing editing code is on a spectrum with the other extreme being vibe coding (never looking at output code, but still interacting with that output in some way). Off the spectrum is what I call LLM-vomit. A human one-shots something and puts it out for others to see, suffer and clean up or ignore. This is code that is encountered literally out of context and can only be further improved (if that is even attempted) by approaching it from first principles. Such code is akin to people using LLM to generate an answer delivered to another human. Both flavors (sorry) of LLM-vomit are bad. I can prompt my own LLM to do that, don't do it for me.