Imo, the article misses the main point of code review. It's not about finding bugs or spreading around knowledge, but about maximizing value vs maintenance costs. Code is expensive, not to produce but to maintain. Every line of code added to a codebase must be read and understood many times over its lifetime, and therefore imposes a burden on future maintainers. We review code in order to weigh its value against that high cost of ownership. High quality, maintainable code is code which maximizes that value delivered while minimizing the cost of its future maintenance.

AI is changing the game here not by increasing (or decreasing) the value of code, but by reducing its cost of ownership. When it's significantly cheaper to understand, modify, and replace code, the balance point shifts significantly. It's the definition of "maintainable" that's changing.

▲

ed_mercer 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fable-class models IMO are now capable enough to maintain your code as well.

▲

em-bee 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

AI may reduce the cost of code production, but it raises the cost of ownership.

▲

Tanoc 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Not just the cost of ownership, but the cost of disposal. Removing parts becomes much harder if you have to look through a lot more pieces to determine how they connect to everything else and what still relies on them. Programmers sometimes forget that they aren't just adding and making new things all the time, but that their job also requires digging through multiple older layers to excise obsolete unneeded things.

	▲	em-bee 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		absolutely, for me that's included in the cost of ownership. just like the cost of ownership of physical items includes the cost of disposal of those items once they are no longer useful.