Indeed it does, however what the "proof" is has changed. In terms of sitting down and doing a full, deep review, tracing every path validating every line etc. Then for sure, nothing has changed.

However, at least in my experience, pre LLM those reviews were not EVERY CASE there were many times I elided parts of a deep review because i saw markers in the code that to me showed competency, care etc. With those markers there are certain failure conditions that can be deemed very unlikely to exist and therefore the checks can be skipped. Is that ALWAYS the correct assumption? Absolutely not but the more experienced you are the less false positives you get.

LLMs make those markers MUCH harder to spot, so you have to fall back to doing a FULL indepth review no matter what. You have to eat ALL the pudding so to speak.

For people that relied on maybe tasting a bit of the pudding then assuming based on the taste the rest of the pudding probably tastes the same its rather jarring and exhausting to now have to eat all of it all the time.