←back to thread

270 points imasl42 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.332s | source
Show context
strix_varius ◴[] No.45659881[source]
To me, the most salient point was this:

> Code reviewing coworkers are rapidly losing their minds as they come to the crushing realization that they are now the first layer of quality control instead of one of the last. Asked to review; forced to pick apart. Calling out freshly added functions that are never called, hallucinated library additions, and obvious runtime or compilation errors. All while the author—who clearly only skimmed their “own” code—is taking no responsibility, going “whoopsie, Claude wrote that. Silly AI, ha-ha.”

LLMs have made Brandolini's law ("The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it") perhaps understated. When an inexperienced or just inexpert developer can generate thousands of lines of code in minutes, the responsibility for keeping a system correct & sane gets offloaded to the reviewers who still know how to reason with human intelligence.

As a litmus test, look at a PR's added/removed LoC delta. LLM-written ones are almost entirely additive, whereas good senior engineers often remove as much code as they add.

replies(14): >>45660176 #>>45660177 #>>45660521 #>>45661077 #>>45661716 #>>45661920 #>>45662128 #>>45662216 #>>45662752 #>>45663314 #>>45664245 #>>45672060 #>>45679145 #>>45683742 #
CaptainOfCoit ◴[] No.45661920[source]
> All while the author—who clearly only skimmed their “own” code—is taking no responsibility, going “whoopsie, Claude wrote that. Silly AI, ha-ha.”

Now I don't do code reviews in large teams anymore, but if I did and something like that happened, I'd allow it exactly once, otherwise I'd try to get the person fired. Barring that, I'd probably leave, as that sounds like a horrible experience.

replies(1): >>45662521 #
1. bloppe ◴[] No.45662521[source]
Ya, there's not much you can do when leadership is so terrible. If this kind of workflow is genuinely blessed by management, I would just start using Claude for code reviews too. Then when things break and people want to point fingers at the code reviewer, I'd direct them to Claude. If it's good enough to write code without scrutiny, it's good enough to review code without scrutiny.