←back to thread

192 points imasl42 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.22s | source
Show context
lapcat ◴[] No.45311745[source]
If you are good at code review, you will also be good at not using AI agents.
replies(2): >>45311873 #>>45314860 #
fhd2 ◴[] No.45311873[source]
This. Having had the pleasure to review the work and fix the bugs of agent jockeys (generally capable developers that fell in love with Claude Code et al), I'm rather sceptical. The code often looks as if they were on mushrooms. They cannot reason about it whatsoever, like they weren't even involved, when I know they weren't completely hands off.

I really believe there are people out there that produce good code with these things, but all I've seen so far has been tragic.

Luckily, I've witnessed a few snap out of it and care again. Literally looks to me as if they had a substance abuse problem for a couple of months.

If you take a critical look at what comes out of contemporary agentic workflows, I think the conclusion must be that it's not there. So yeah, if you're a good reviewer, you would perhaps come to that conclusion much sooner.

replies(3): >>45313032 #>>45313296 #>>45314517 #
carlmr ◴[] No.45313032[source]
>The code often looks as if they were on mushrooms. They cannot reason about it whatsoever

Interesting comparison, why not weed or alcohol?

replies(1): >>45314712 #
1. fhd2 ◴[] No.45314712[source]
Never tried psychedelic mushrooms, so that part is speculation. But no amount of weed or alcohol could get me even close to writing code that unhinged.