why leave comments intended for your human colleague when they will only forward them to the bot?

why not speak directly to the bot yourself instead? then you can drop pretenses and get to the point

I find this to be a new variant of the old behavior where a colleague comments on a typo in a PR, and the team later moans about laborious back and forth for small nitpicks, instead of simply editing the typo right there (and perhaps leaving a note that they did so)

▲

liveoneggs 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

yeah I have this happen to me. I occasionally get screenshots of claude sent to me!

▲

doctorpangloss 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

let's take the two stories to management:

"I'm writing tons of code, and the process is stumbling where the guy whose job it is to review code isn't reviewing it."

"I'm not reviewing code."

Sometimes I wonder: how does someone go and think so much about their coworkers, and never once think about how they themselves look?

Even if I sympathize with the people complaining about their poorly chosen GitHub-based workflow - whose purpose is to let pull requests languish, for the most part - and how they stumble when overwhelmed with solutions. It's obvious to me, that the people who complain the loudest about the anti-sociality of LLM authored code in their precious harmonious low-effort workplace status quo: they are projecting.

▲

cool_dude85 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Imagine you are a restaurant reviewer. Your job is unquestionably to go to restaurants, order and eat food, and write a review. The restaurant's job is to provide you food to eat and review.

You go to a new restaurant, and order some dishes, and one of the plates your server brings out is a big ol pile of dog shit.

Who's being anti-social in this situation? The restaurant is doing its job and all they're asking is that you do yours. On the other hand, you have certain expectations about what you order from the restaurant and they're not being met. Who's anti-social?

	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	carlosjobim an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		He's not bringing you a pile of dog shit. He's bringing you some food he went to the restaurant next doors to get. How do you review it?

▲

jeremyjh 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The person who "writes" code is also supposed to review their own work, and answer for that. If they won't do that - well - they should be fired. But if you have weak or uninvolved leadership, then the team's only rational recourse is to shun them.

▲

taneq 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s much more effort to verify that code is correct than it use to produce it. This is the case even for human-written code, and now that we face a torrent of ok-looking probably-usable AI generated code, the problem is compounded infinitely.

If someone’s using AI to generate a large quantity of actually-tested, actually-good code then that’s one thing. If they’re generating a fire hose of slop and demanding that others do the actual human time-consuming work of validating that code then that person is the problem. It’s hard to tell which is the case here.