Why is reviewing hard? I use LLMs for reviewing. It is dogmatic to review every line written by an LLM.

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.