If people knew how to get AI to write terse, focused summaries, sure, that might help. I haven't seen many that do (well, ignoring the toupee fallacy).

Though the most important aspect is that we need to know the motivation and thought process, and all AI can do is fabricate a 'plausible' one.

▲

adalacelove 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Reading AI PRs reminds me of Monty Python's holy grenade:

"And the Lord spake, saying, ''First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'

	▲	dsign 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wouldn't mind reading that and having a good chuckle while processing an MR, as long as the comment had been crafted by a person. But now I think writing in grunts is gonna become the thing. "pete? you good boy? we won't hire you/ paper you gave HR girl with older gigs? remember it pete my boy? too many words/ words were too long/ dots you used dots/ you scratched long dash with knife, but baby saw scratch/we don't ai pete/ask if they have job in next cave/good luck."

▲

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

I have spent many years reviewing and editing design and product documentation from more Jr engineers and product managers.

It was a constant struggle to get them to be concise, one I mostly lost.

▲

chrisjj 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If people knew how to get AI to write terse, focused summaries...

... then flooded maintainers would be doing it.

▲

ray_kay777 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've found that the instructions "be extremely concise" gets me much closer to output that's actually sensible/helpful rather than another wall of text.