[tabwidth]

The intention part is right but the bottleneck is review. AI is really good at turning your clean semantic functions into pragmatic ones without you noticing. You ask for a feature, it slips a side effect into something that was pure, tests still pass. By the time you catch it you've got three more PRs built on top.

[peacebeard]

In my experience trying to push the onus of filtering out slop onto reviewers is both ineffective and unfair to the reviewer. When you submit code for review you are saying "I believe to the best of my ability that this code is high quality and adequate but it's best to have another person verify that." If the AI has done things without you noticing, you haven't reviewed its output well enough yet and shouldn't be submitting it to another person yet.

[skydhash]

Code review should be a transmission of ideas and helping spotting errors that can slip in due to excessive familiarity with the changes (which are often glaring to anyone other than the author).

If you're not familiar with the patch enough to answer any question about it, you shouldn't submit it for review.