| I like the 'better, but not faster' phrasing. I'm not gonna say no to some system that validates my code before I present it as a PR, and if said system (it being static checking, dynamic checking, or LLM), gives me a 'comment', I will interpret the output, validate, and decide whether to take action, and how. And maybe there I disagree a little with the proposal. It's me, it's my code. I stand behind it. But I get where the authors come from, and I believe it's a fine compromise. I think more importantly in the world of Software Engineering we're seeing a split. On one hand, people who go all-in on AI and take the output as 100% correct, copy-paste it as theirs without reviewing, prompt it to create PRs and submit them as-is, and worse, as their own. Then there is the other side, people who use AI as a tool to validate and go deeper. The problem with the first group that everywhere they feel entitled to shift the validation onus from themselves to the receipient of what they're sending, it being PR or review comment or message or whatever. In PRs now the repo maintainer has to do a lot more work, as they cannot rely on the social construct of "OptionOfT wrote this, they have 10+ years of experience in these and these systems, so we can look at the PR through that lens". Equally, I've been on the receiving end of AI PR comments (the PR was human-authored), but copy-pasted by humans, presenting the comment as their own, without properly (if anything) validating the correctness of the comment, or whether it actually makes sense for the PR. Lots of derailment there. This now increases the workload of the PR author, as above. We need to validate and cannot rely on the social construct. Is the comment even correct? What's the context? Why? Is it a hallucination? And the downside is that it looks like the first group is now going faster, but the second group is actually slowing down due to the increased burden. |