[djb_hackernews]

the trend is AI also does the code review. Too many anecdotes and studies showing AI is a better code review that a human and the models are just going to get better.

Whether we get better results if AI reviews Python or Rust I'm not sure. But I suspect Rust will win out as the training data likely has more content around Rust correctness and language usage than Python does.

[bloppe]

You must have a low bar for human code review. I've seen that in practice too. But I've also been on teams that took code review very seriously, and frontier AI really doesn't come close to a good human code reviewer imo

[Daishiman]

They're complementary. AI reviewers are bad at spotting inappropriate architecture patterns and unnecessary verbosity, but they're very good at identifying various types of complex logic bugs and detecting mismatches between code docs and implementation. They add substantial value.

[bloppe]

That's fair

[cerved]

if you want to reason about language correctness you are better off using linters, compilers and things like fuzzing

> the trend is AI also does the code review

please no. Keep at least four eyes on all code you ship