So my main point is to stop asking whether and how code review in its current form can be saved, but to have an open conversation about what we are trying to achieve here and the costs and benefits of alternative models.

What would these other models be? The article assumes LLM-generated code leads to the loss of current review processes, which they call 'modern reviews'.

I feel like my team does and will continue to do reviews for the same reasons and with the same gains as before. LLM may generate code, but I expect my colleagues to take ownership of whatever they produce, to understand it, take responsibility, and describe it. (Which is an issue/gap for some, but that was an issue even before generating code.)