[flagged]

Paracompact 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The blog post mentions rising standards of quality enabled by AI-assisted code review, and that reverted code predates the era of AI. Even very competently managed codebases are not above mistakes, especially when held to as high of a standard as this.

	▲	Gigachad an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I’ve noticed the GitHub copilot reviews have gone from mostly nitpicks to very complicated issues that are hard to even understand or validate. Some of these are incorrect but some of them are actual findings of issues that simply would have gone unaddressed previously. So a lot of this increase in bug reports lately is simply that we are more able to find issues which would previously have been shipped and probably wouldn’t have even been noticed by users for a long time. The minimum bar for software quality is going up, there's no excuse to ship software which contains bugs that could be detected by an LLM.

▲

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

Well I have a document for you to read on this very question!

▲

glouwbug 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	kbenson 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		GP is referring to the submission, in case that wasn't obvious. It's opining as to possible reasons, given the author is one of the people who had a feature reverted. > Did someone not understand what went in? Unlikely, from the context. > Might someone have offloaded their thinking to some external tool? No, according to the author, since the features predate most current LLM assisted coding. > Did people stop caring? I'm not sure what this means. Presumably things were reverted because people cared enough to make sure it was good quality before being released. > Did someone not plan or design a feature in full? An admitted possibility > Were the timelines unrealistic? Depending on what you mean, that may be correct according to the article, but I suspect not in the way you mean. > Maybe with so many reverts timelines should be revised? It sounds like there was a very large increase in load in some of the people that would commonly review during this time period, and that may or may not continue to happen to a greater or lesser degree in the future, it depends on how LLMs advance in finding bugs and if there are other large waved of bugs reported.
	▲	cwillu 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Huh?

▲

stickfigure an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Take any codebase you built in the pre-AI era and run it through AI review. I guarantee, no matter how smart you are or how diligently you write tests, you will be absolutely gobsmacked by the findings. Turns out we haven't been writing perfect software all this time and we have some catching up to do.