[hks0]

> "I vibe-coded this pull request in just 15 minutes. Please review" > > Well, why don't you review it first?

My current day to day problem is that, the PRs don't come with that disclaimer; The authors won't even admit if asked directly. Yet I know my comments on the PR will be fed to the cursor so it makes more crappy edits, and I'll be expecting an entirely different PR in 10 minutes to review from scratch without even addressing the main concern. I wish I could at least talk to the AI directly.

(If you're wondering, it's unfortunately not in my power right now to ignore or close the PRs).

[lukevp]

Rather than close or ignore PRs, you should start a dialogue with them. Teach them that the AI is not a person, and if they contribute buggy or low quality code, it’s their responsibility, not the AIs, and ultimately their job on the line.

Another perspective I’ve found to resonate with people is to remind them — if you’re not reviewing the code or passing it through any type of human reasoning to determine its fit to solving the business problem - what value are you adding at all? If you just copy pasta through AI, you might as well not even be in the loop, because it’d be faster for me to do it directly, and have the context of the prompts as well.

This is a step change in our industry and an opportunity to mentor people who are misusing it. If they don’t take it, there are plenty of people who will. I have a feeling that AI will actually separate the wheat from the chaff, because right now, people can hide a lack of understanding and effort because the output speed is so low for everyone. Once those who have no issue with applying critical thinking and debugging to the problem and work well with the business start to leverage AI, it’ll become very obvious who’s left behind.

[drewbug01]

> Rather than close or ignore PRs, you should start a dialogue with them. Teach them that the AI is not a person, and if they contribute buggy or low quality code, it’s their responsibility, not the AIs, and ultimately their job on the line.

I’m willing to mentor folks, and help them grow. But what you’re describing sounds so exhausting, and it’s so much worse than what “mentorship” meant just a few short years ago. I have to now teach people basic respect and empathy at work? Are we serious?

For what it’s worth: sometimes ignoring this kind of stuff is teaching. Harshly, sure - but sometimes that’s what’s needed.

[johnnyanmac]

>I have to now teach people basic respect and empathy at work? Are we serious?

Given that we (or at least, much of this community) seem to disagree with this article, that does indeed seem to be the case. "It's just a tool" "it's elitist to reject AI generated output". The younger generations learn from these behaviors too.

[distantprovince]

100% real life is much more grim. I can only hope we'll somehow figure it out.

I haven't personally been in this position, but when I think about it, looping all your reviews through the cursor would reduce your perceived competence, wouldn't it? Is giving them a negative performance review an option?

[lxgr]

Trust is earned in drops and lost in buckets. If somebody asks for my time to review slop, especially without a disclaimer, I'll simply not be reviewing their pull requests going forward.

[GeoAtreides]

My condolences, that sounds like hell

[craftkiller]

Show their manager?