|
|
|
|
|
|
by savanaly
481 days ago
|
|
|
The thing is that inserting AI into the code reviewer side doesn't make too much sense. Unless they have a different AI doing the reviewing than the one that helped to write it, there won't be anything left to say at that stage. The AI was already involved in writing it and as they mention in the article there's points in the writing-with-AI process where the AI editor will try to catch bugs, educate the developer, and so forth. If the reviewing AI can catch further bugs that's just proof the writing AI needs to be tightened up, not that there's a role for a reviewing AI. The commentary given above is invalid if due to the preferences of the human developers or just weird protocol in their working relationship they end up with different AI's in the two instances. But I think in the long term equilibrium this point applies. |
|
|
In the maker-checker process, if we are imagining a future where AI will be writing/editing most of the code, the AI-code-review tools will need to integrate within its agentic process.
And the job of a better code-review interface (like the one that I am trying to build) would be to provide a higher level of abstraction to the user so that they can verify the output of the AI code generators more effectively.