> “I disabled the test so it’s not run so now all the tests pass”

Also:

"I implemented it this terrible way because of precedence in the codebase...that I just wrote"

"I avoided implementing this correctly because of migration concern for existing installations of this code I'm writing right now"

"I deferred this critical feature for the future, so we can deploy quicker"

or, my favorite,

"I hand rolled an buggy http server because you said the tool should be self contained"

I used Fable to write a relatively small RPG. In the span of 2 hours it managed to do many interesting things. My favorite was when it wrote code with a race condition that could cause people to take more damage than they should, which it then defended as an acceptable tradeoff for parallelism.

The simple sentences LLM keep generating break my brain, it's like 95% of writing is now 3rd grade level.

Compare that to e.g. Martin Amis: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Amis

I wish they were. Displaying an error message to the user, asking to try again later, is way too cheap in my opinion.

Do they, though? AWS and CloudFlare recently had the worst outages in their history, and GitHub is flirting with zero nines of uptime these days. Doesn’t seem to have cost them any business.

It's difficult to spot issues from a huge diff. But when a agent finish a task, it remembers what it just went through, where it got stuck, when it got corrected by human, what code make it want to say the F word to the author, that would be a good chance to make the codebase cleaner.

> ai can do some of the reviewing

No way this can backfire.

> checking calling and called arguments

Like a static language compiler already does?

IMO it can, about as well as an entry/mid level dev

I think the question is now "should you care?" And it seems the magnificent, incorruptible thought leaders of our time are all converging on "No"

AFAICT, the author is talking about rewriting code during a review as part of the review process.

quote: "If I identify code that’s more complex than it needs to be, in my own work or in someone else’s PR"

If so, that makes a lot of sense to me. The best time to rewrite code is before it hits production.

LLM's are good at some types of reviews and awful at others. They generally tend to overcomplicate things and miss opportunities to simplify. They pretty much have to take pre-existing code and tests as gospel and cannot distinguish which is buggy, incomplete, unimportant or important. They have no knowledge of unwritten business requirements, customer preferences, et cetera so high level review is always necessary.

I also like having long, pointed conversations with LLMs as I review code. Then when I'm done, it's different code, and it has all of my blind spots and knowledge gaps, so I cannot effectively review it anymore.

It's like turning a code review that requests you, into a code review that requests someone else. And it tramples on the original author quite a bit too. It's hard only having the ability to add incremental value to large amounts of code, instead of large amounts of value to incremental code.

I'm confused - are you purposefully pretending that the author isn't talking about human review?

What kind of systems do you work on? Does it have production traffic? Is there a cost to downtime?

always true to your name

you arnt reviewing. youre playing loophole semantics.