> Just got out of a 15m huddle with someone trying to understand what they were doing in a PR before they admitted Claude generated everything and it worked but they weren't sure why...

But .. that's not the AI's fault. If people submit any PRs (including AI-generated or AI-assisted) without completely understanding them, I'd treat is as serious breach of professional conduct and (gently, for first-timers) stress that this is not acceptable.

As someone hitting the "Create PR" (or equivalent) button, you accept responsibility for the code in question. If you submit slop, it's 100% on you, not on any tool used.

▲

whatever1 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you have to review what the LLM wrote then there is no productivity gain.

Leadership asks for vibe coding

▲

senko 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If you have to review what the LLM wrote then there is no productivity gain.

I do not agree with that statement.

> Leadership asks for vibe coding

Leadership always asks for more, better, faster.

	▲	mangamadaiyan 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Leadership always asks for more, better, faster. More and faster, yes. Almost never better.

▲

swat535 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you have to review what the LLM wrote then there is no productivity gain.

You always have to review the code, whether it's written by another person, yourself or an AI.

I'm not sure how this translates into the loss of productivity?

Did you mean to say that the code AI generates is difficult to review? In those cases, it's the fault of the code author and not the AI.

Using AI like any other tool requires experience and skill.

▲

fooster 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suggest you upgrade your code review skill. I find it vastly quicker in most cases to review code than write it in the first place.

	▲	whatever1 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Anyone can skim code and type “looks good to me”.

▲

epolanski 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If you have to review what the LLM wrote then there is no productivity gain

Stating something with confidence does not make it automatically true.

▲

WolfeReader 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I've seen AI create incorrect solutions and deceptive variable names. Reviewing the code is absolutely necessary.

▲

draxil 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But it's pretty much a given at this point that if you use agents to code for any length of time it starts to atrophy your ability to understand what's going on. So, yeah. it's a bit of a devils chalice.