|
|
|
|
|
by Groxx
642 days ago
|
|
Having seen / used / etc similar things: yes I fully agree. For people who already know the code well, it can catch things you didn't think about, and that's kinda nice. I suspect it has cost me/my team more time on wild goose chases than it has saved on real findings, but it might still be worth it. For others, I've seen it constantly mislead people, and convince them to make changes that look reasonable but lead to the PR being incorrect. Over and over and over. And the "look reasonable" part is particularly dangerous during code reviews - reviewers are less careful about things that look reasonable, that's a relatively normal and unavoidable thing for humans even though it's incorrect. When it's exposed to everyone, there's a pressure to follow and trust it, like existing linters. Private use is less bad, but still risky due to the plausible-change-review-negligence issue. --- Also PR descriptions in particular are borderline useless when written from an LLM, because they just summarize the changes (or mislead summary-readers about the change, when incorrect). So you're just littering your commit history with the equivalent of auto-generated blogspam. No thanks. |
|