One thing I expected from the AI era was a decrease in emotional attachment to code reviews.

My assumption was that AI-generated code would make reviews easier because criticism of the code wouldn't feel like criticism of the author.

Instead, I've repeatedly seen people strongly defend AI generated code, and sometimes even defend AI explanations that are demonstrably incorrect.

Is anyone else seeing this?

If so, what do you think is driving it? How are you handling it within your team?

Also, has anyone found effective ways to reduce the influence of "leading question" prompts?

I very much want to keep human in the loop style paradigm within our teams, but at the same time I do wonder if my life would get a whole lot easier if instead we jumped on the "loop/factory/vibe" train.

Emotionally attached … no, but damm I would not want to write code by hand again. I stand behind principles and years of development, so if enough time spent with ai on a task I would be happy to defend its quality, as I believe newcomers/juniors will try as well so I guess expected?

The most of my co-workers stay skeptical to AI outcome all the time, so your described "problems" don't exist at my work. I am just someone who likes to trust AI, at least under the circumstances that it proved it's statements. I am emotionally attached to the new way of work though, because my life became way more stress free since then.

I am more emotionally attached to the _outcome of the use_ of that code than the code itself.