←back to thread

270 points imasl42 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.248s | 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 #
1. Quis_sum ◴[] No.45679145[source]
I am probably too old school: Unless properly documented (the "whats" and especially the "whys") and provided with a test harness (plus the test cases, including all fringe cases btw.) just reject it straight away. And in the case it is provided and you have a hard time understanding it, reject it as well with the comment that, the "demi-god" (author) should provide documentation which mere mortals can follow.

That principle can be applied to both LLM slop and handcrafted rubbish. Eventually most people will get it.