[tromp]

> Code review becomes your post-game analysis. Magnus reviews his games with engines to learn from their superior analysis. You review LLM code to ensure it's actually correct.

If AI coding assistents really worked like Chess engines, they would review your code, pointing out issues and suggesting improvements.

[codeclimber]

Yes, chess engines review your games and point out blunders. They also suggest moves you'd never consider. Like when you're analyzing a position and the engine recommends a move that flips the eval from -1.5 to +1.8. Similarly, coding assistants might suggest a solution you'd never considered.

Both teach something new.

[CaptainOfCoit]

I guess the purpose is difference? You play chess because you want to play chess, as a fun thing (and also sometimes more serious thing), but a lot of us write code for something else, the purpose is not the code itself, but what it accomplishes, the code just happens to be a tool, so it's not necessarily the activity you want to do, it just unlocks/improves some other activity.

I think it'd be fairly easy to create a project that uses an LLM to effectively review your code, if that what's you want. But personally I'd rather do the opposite, describe what sort of code I'm looking for, how it's supposed to work, and what the goal is, and then not having to do the actual typing itself.

[xandrius]

That's definitely possible, just not perfect but they can catch/point out some bugs.