If AI is already mass-producing garbage PRs and other unreliable crap, what makes AI (established as producing unreliable crap) the solution for review? What makes the reviewing AI not produce unreliable crap with regards to the review?

A magical, hypothetical AI that always gets it right and will make all these problems go away is neither a solution nor a plan. It's wishful thinking.

▲

caymanjim 4 hours ago | parent [-]

AI in the hands of the right people is incredibly powerful. A good team of engineers with AI doing their own bug-hunting on their own code is already far better than any outsider—human, AI, or human-assisted AI—could ever do. A good internal AI-assisted team is also the only thing that can vet all other contributions. It doesn't matter if those contributions are 100% human-written, 100% AI-written, or a combination. The problem is the same.

Unless you stop accepting outside contributions at all, there's simply no way to determine if a human was involved in the process. Any mandate that all contributions come from humans will fail because there's no detection or enforcement mechanism. You have to assume it's slop either way, and improve your ability to vet it. Only another AI can do that, because we don't have enough qualified humans to keep up.

▲

48terry 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That didn't actually address my comment or question, so I'll repeat it, I guess.

We already know AI is spamming unreliable crap and slop. The apparent solution is "more, better AI".

Why wouldn't this AI for screening all this also produce crap and slop?

Is the plan there "AI but it actually works right and doesn't produce crap and slop"?

	▲	caymanjim 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I did address it: AI in the hands of the right people. Random contributions to bug bounty programs or random PRs for new features come from all corners: expert engineers producing fantastic code; intermediate engineers trying their hardest but producing mediocre code; junior engineers wasting everyone's time with ill-conceived poorly-written code; and all of the above with varying amounts of AI assistance. And now also purely-automated AI, where the only human involved is pointing their AI at GitHub with no guidance. You can't stop it on the inbox side. Either you turn the inbox off, or you leverage AI to help you separate the wheat from the chaff.