[yahoobing]

2% time is superficial review.

For a 40h all week job that is less than 1h

Not enough time to even understand the requirements of a 40h job.

10h would be minimum.

Unless you are just checking that the style guide is correct and obvious missed null checks.

For this reason I feel code reviews are a bit silly and pair programming is way better (pairing with a mix of sync and async work) but that is an aside.

In addition a code review being short is usually because the coder and reviewer are both very competent. Once AI enters the chat the reviewer needs to look very closely at every line.

[kaptainscarlet]

Code reviews are more of a formality, a pointless one. There's little to no value in one code reviewing a piece of code without the background business problem being solved by it.

[dyauspitr]

Sure but a “superficial” review is what most corps currently run on. Certain crucial code gets looked at more throughly. If there are any bugs QA catches it.

It’s going to be the same with AI. It pumps out a lot of code. Human does spot checks and probably uses other AI to help with the code review. A real human does the really hard, critical code directly. A more robust QA team makes sure it all works.

[yahoobing]

I think you are right in the near future but not today. I don’t think we are quite there yet with AI but the pace of improvement is breathtaking and producing code (and more generally “logic” which could be code but also machine code, system design, LLM prompts and so on) is such a pot of gold the AI companies will go for it.