[giaour]

My org has a bot that generates AI summaries of all internal pull requests, and it's honestly been pretty helpful to compare that (a fairly accurate guess of what the PR will do) against the PR author's description (a statement of what the PR is meant to do). The main thing I look for in PRs is an alignment of intentions and actions, so the AI summary helps, especially for large PRs.

Of course, some engineers have stopped writing PR descriptions since the bot will do it for them. But that means that the only people who can effectively review that PR are the ones who already know what it's supposed to do, which is generally a small pool.

This has been a pattern I've seen repeated with workplace AI: they make something hard a little bit easier, but in a way that will the underlying problem worse over time.