←back to thread

270 points imasl42 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Etheryte ◴[] No.45660521[source]
In my opinion this is another case where people look at it as a technical problem when it's actually a people problem. If someone does it once, they get a stern message about it. If it happens twice, it gets rejected and sent to their manager. Regardless of how you authored a pull request, you are signing off on it with your name. If it's garbage, then you're responsible.
replies(8): >>45660554 #>>45661363 #>>45661709 #>>45661887 #>>45662382 #>>45662723 #>>45663123 #>>45664880 #
travisgriggs ◴[] No.45663123[source]
I largely agree with sibling responses.

BUT...

How do have code review be an educational experience for onboarding/teaching if any bad submission is cut down with due prejudice?

I am happy to work with a junior engineer and is trying, and we have to loop on some silly mistakes, and pick and choose which battles to balance building confidence with developing good skills.

But I am not happy to have a junior engineer throw LLM stuff at me, inspired the confidence that the psycophantic AI engendered in it, and then have to churn on that. And if you're not in the same office, how do you even hope to sift through which bad parts are which kind?

replies(2): >>45663266 #>>45667025 #
1. skydhash ◴[] No.45663266[source]
To mentor requires a mentee. If a junior is not willing to learn (reasoning, coming up, with an hypothesis, implementing the concept, and verifying it), then why should a senior bother to teach. As a philosopher has once said, a teacher is not meant to give you the solution, but to help you come up with your own.