They address the difficulties of doing this in the post.

If you can’t actually write undergraduate level code then seeing a machine do it and all you can do is pore over it and try to explain it simply amounts to you knowing less and being less capable of computer science than the average student in the 70s or 80s. This isn’t like an assignment to take an existing Linux kernel module and explain it given the source code. These are basic primitives.

Yeah, this is a good one - does it matter if you wrote the code, or a computer did? If you can explain how it works, and why it is like that that should mean that you understand it and have learned the important parts.

You could ask it to explain line-by-line for you and memorize that enough to give an oral presentation. You may not get the best grade, but it might be enough for a passing grade.

If you memorize it that's half way to understanding, so fair use

There isn’t any time for this in a 500 person public university classroom.

When I was at uni, there was no marking of assignments. The "examples papers" were basically your opportunity to understand the course before a supervision when you could discuss them. If you didn't do the examples, the supervisor didn't really care (typically a grad student that had enough of their own worries). My point is, if I'd cheated, it would have ultimately been my problem when it came to sitting the exam.

One can delegate that to ChatGPT.

Well there is, vastly increase the barrier for entry into universities. Maybe those 500 person classrooms can now be the 25 person classrooms they were actually meant to be. :)

Do it randomly and make the penalties for cheating severe. Why is it CS people suddenly have no solutions for solvable problems?