[devonbleak]

What you're actually going to see is seniors inundated by slop and burning out and quitting because what used to be enjoyable solving of problems has become wading through slop that took 10 minutes to generate and submit but 30+ minutes to understand and write up a critique for it.

[8note]

not even that. implementing this requirement could be a general work stoppage whenever the senior engineer is in all day meetings or on vacation

With a layout of 4 juniors, 5 intermediates, and 0-1 senior per team, putting all the changes through senior engineer review means you mostly wont be able to get CRs approved.

I guess it could result in forcing everyone who's sandbagging as intermediate instead of going to senior to have to get promoted?

[wiseowise]

What vacation? Didn’t you hear we unlocked unlimited productivity?

[kavalg]

30+ minutes is a gross underestimation IMHO. It is probably somewhere in the range 1:10, 10:100, especially if you include the cost of context switches a senior has to do. In my experience, the loss of flow, due to context switch is very prominent and sometimes painful.

[SpicyLemonZest]

In my experience, Claude and the juniors piloting it are usually receptive to quick feedback along the lines of "This is unreasonably hard to understand, please try refactoring it this way and let me know when it's cleaner".

[suzzer99]

Can I interest you in a bunch of emoji-laden comments?

[wehadit]

Why not get it 1st time right before it's sent to the Sr. Devs?

Granted AI creates sloppy code, but there are ways to make it Sr. Dev grade, mainly by getting rid of what I call Builder's Debt: - iterate the shit out of it to make it production grade OR - extract ACs from Jira, requirements from docs, decisions and query resolutions from Slack, emails, meeting notes, stitch them together, design coding standards relevant to the requirements and context before coding