[brabel]

I am convinced human reviews are overhyped in the industry. We've done it in my company since we started it, and bugs keep happening. People are just terrible at spotting them in the middle of 100 lines of correct code.

Machines, OTOH, are very good at it. I am currently trying to make the code review experience better for humans by not just having the AI review the code, but interact with the human, pointing out potential problems, bad patterns, perhaps hiding some code (e.g. renamings, formatting changes).

Developers still want to review the code, despite provably being bad at spotting bugs, because they want to actually keep knowledge of what's being modified in the code base, so I think this is the best approach.

[vrganj]

Maybe the humans are just overwhelmed by the amount of poorly readable AI code you're throwing at them? Maybe they'd be better at reviewing if the code was written by somebody who had put thought into the code instead?

[brabel]

Like we had done for the 10 years prior? Don’t think so. BTW the ai code is as readable as the human’s. Never had to call out people on the AI code being unreadable.

[vrganj]

I have not had the same experience. In the PRs I have read, AI accomplishes in 300 very verbose lines what a competent human could in like 60, quintupling cognitive load to review.

[brabel]

But that's so easy to fix! I can't believe people complain about stuff like this. The person making the PR could've told the AI "hey you can easily reduce the amount of code by using this technique" or whatever... or saying you prefer concise code than verbose code in the system prompt so the AI behaves how you want it to... If you can't do any of that, and I can guarantee that if you did you wouldn't have this problem, then you're not really trying.

[vrganj]

It's structurally impossible to fix

I've addressed why in a response to a similar claim here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48157898