[philippta]

> LLM-generated code should not be reviewed by others if the responsible engineer has not themselves reviewed it.

To extend that: If the LLM is the author and the responsible engineer is the genuine first reviewer, do you need a second engineer at all?

Typically in my experience one review is enough.

[ares623]

Yeesss this is what I’ve been (semi-sarcastically) thinking about. Historically it’s one author and one reviewer before code gets shipped.

Why introduce a second reviewer and reduce the rumoured velocity gained by LLMs? After all, “it doesn’t matter what wrote the code” right.

I say let her rip. Or as the kids say, code goes brrr.

[sevensor]

I disagree. Code review has a social purpose as well as a technical one. It reinforces a shared understanding of the code and requires one person to assure another that the code is ready for review. It develops consensus about design decisions and agreement about what the code is for. With only one person, this is impossible. “Code goes brrr” is a neutral property. It can just as easily take you to the wrong destination as the right one.

[bananapub]

yes, obviously?

anyone who is doing serious enough engineering that they have the rule of "one human writes, one human reviews" wants two humans to actually put careful thought in to a thing, and only one of them is deeply incentivised to just commit the code.

your suggestion means less review and worse incentives.

[Yeask]

anyone who is doing serious enough engineering is not using LLMS.

[K0nserv]

More eyes are better, but more importantly code review is also about knowledge dissemination. If only the original author and the LLM saw the code you have a bus factor of 1. If another person reviews the bus factor is closer to 2.