Comment by refulgentis

I did, his argument is that we've already discovered ~50% of all bugs discoverable by LLMs.

I'm treading lightly after you said "did you read it" to OP, I do believe we both understand that argument isn't nearly air-tight. (i.e. it implies either humans get so good at code that bug-introduction-rate falls percipitously, or, LLMs are so awesome they write all of our code bug-free. Neither of which jives with the thesis, that LLM code review is a nothingburger long term)

The best steelman we could say is "he meant 50% of all existing bugs in all currently existing code", which is still incompatible with a time-bound on their usefulness, unless we expect the rate of new code to fall percipitously.

The steelman I'm using, is they're speaking both loosely and strongly and intend us to understand these are strong opinions, held loosely, and they care for us enough to share.