I don't know why you'd think that.

200 decent unit tests are better than zero unit tests.

The main benefit of writing tests is that is forces the developer to think about what they just wrote and what it is supposed to do. I often will find bugs while writing tests.

I've worked on projects with 2,000+ unit tests that are essentially useless, often fail when nothing is wrong, and rarely detect actual bugs. It is absolutely worse than having 0 tests. This is common when developers write tests to satisfy code coverage metrics, instead of in an effort to make sure their code works properly.

Look, you tell the LLMs what kind of tests you want and judge the quality before committing.

If you're letting the LLM create useless test that's on you.

I think you're reading these comments in bad faith as if I'm letting the LLM add slop to satisfy a metric.

No, I'm using an LLM to write good tests that I will personally approve as usefull, and other people will review too, before merging into master.