I agree. I'm the AI luddite on my team of red team security engineers, but I'm still using it in very limited use cases. As much as I disagree with how the guardrails around AI are being handled, I still need to use it to stay relevant in my field and not get canned.

▲

hootz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm already adding "Agentic Workflows" as a skill in my LinkedIn profile. Cringed hard at that, but oh well...

▲

pydry 10 hours ago | parent [-]

What if the hiring managers at the jobs you'd actually prefer to work at also cringe when they see it on your profile?

▲

hn_throwaway_99 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's becoming so ubiquitous, I highly doubt it. At worst I think a manager would just see it as fluff, but not a negative.

▲

bluefirebrand 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I hope the hiring managers I would actually want to work for would see it as a red flag on resumes

▲

pesus 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

At this point, I'd assume those hiring managers are also being forced to use AI in their jobs (or pretend, at least) and probably wouldn't read too much into it if it's not a substantial portion of their resume. I do feel the same way, though.

▲

MarcelOlsz 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why? It's just the name of the game, everyone gets it. Especially if you're a generalist/frontend type.

	▲	bluefirebrand 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's simply not a game I'm interested in playing. I'll find something else to do instead, leave the AI jockeying to others.

▲

pydry 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I asked coz know several managers who would look upon it as a red flag and I suspect OP would probably prefer to work for them rather than AI sheep.

▲

hootz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's actually a really good point.

▲

miltonlost 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm using claude but then refuse to do much cleaning up of what it spews. Im leaving that for the PR reviewers who love AI and going through slop. If they want slop, I'll give them the slop they want.

▲

whstl 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not advocating that people should follow this but:

As someone that loves cleaning up code, I'm actually asking the vibe coders in the team (designer, PM and SEO guy) to just give me small PRs and then I clean up instead of reviewing. I know they will just put the text back in code anyway, so it's less work for me to refactor it.

With a caveat: if they give me >1000 lines or too many features in the same PR, I ask them to reduce the scope, sometimes to start from scratch.

And I also started doing this with another engineer: no review cycle, we just clean up each other's code and merge.

I'm honestly surprised at how much I prefer this to the traditional structure of code reviews.

Additionally, I don't have to follow Jira tickets with lengthy SEO specs or "please change this according to Figma". They just the changes themselves and we go on with our lives.

	▲	grvdrm 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Favorited. I was talking to someone (non-dev) yesterday who prototypes with Claude and then goes back/forth with the lead engineer to clean it up and make it production worthy (or at least more robust). I like that model.

▲

MSFT_Edging 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just started work on a project. Greenfield and "AI accelerated". PRs diffs are in the range of 10s of thousands of lines. In the PR, it is suggested to not actually read all the code as it would take too long.

▲

jmccaf 10 hours ago | parent [-]

If you push a change, or you approve, you're responsible for the change and its effects later. Regardless of size. If change is too big, tell your teammates its too big to review and to refactor to bite-size with their great coding agents. Use AI models also for review of large changes, consider a checklist . Setup CI and integration tests (also can be AI assisted)

	▲	JTbane 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Agreed, and something will go wrong (as every junior has experienced). You cannot lay blame on the AI when git blame shows your name.
	▲	MSFT_Edging 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Oh there's plenty of CI, linting, etc. Half of which is not properly plumbed in.

▲

kelzier 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I thought the de facto policy was that the individual remains responsible in a team context.

	▲	notpachet 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sweet summer child.

▲

jbxntuehineoh 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

based. our CEO has made it clear that we're expected to use LLMs to shit out as many features as we can as quickly as we can, so that's exactly what I'm doing. Can't wait to watch leadership flail around in a year or two when the long term consequences start to become apparent

	▲	red75prime 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> when the long term consequences start to become apparent Choose your own story! and then a) programmers become relevant again and slowly fix all this crap, b) Claude 7.16 waltz through fixing things as it goes.
	▲	eloisius 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You'll just get laid off and they'll be onto the next hype cycle as visionaries.