[niuzeta]

A very prolific coworker who fully embraced claude has inflicted the team with a flood of AI-generated PRs. About six months later, it is his frequent bemoaning at the standup that their PR don't get reviewed, languishing in inattention. I don't think anyone - including myself - _intentionally_ avoid his PRs. It's just that he doesn't make it easy for the team to look at.

This single headline perfectly captures what I have been thinking. It's not that I reject AI content, but it takes _effort_ to review and weed out any mistakes. When your thoughtful reviews that take an hour(because the PR is typically large, and you want to be _right_ when you're pointing out a hallucination) gets an AI-generated response with AI-generated amendments, It doesn't feel _nice_. I feel dismissed and it has continuously trained me to subconsciously avoid his PRs. After all, the team is fully onboarded with AI, so it's not like there is a lack of PRs to review.

It looks like the sentiment isn't just isolated for me.

[Jimmc414]

Fight fire with fire. Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. If there are excessive defects, ask them in standup if they actually reviewed the PR themselves before sending it. If there aren’t maybe they are on to something. I think like in law, the human submitting the work is responsible for its quality, not the AI.

[LambdaComplex]

> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them.

This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.

[Jensson]

It will help if your wall of text cost less tokens than theirs, they will run out before you do if you have the same company quota per person.

[Telemakhos]

I'm not sure what the right vocabulary would be to describe this, but this sounds more like the calculations behind nuclear war than a healthy collegiality or cooperative work relationship. This sets up a competition to determine a loser based on resource scarcity, not a way to achieve mutual goals to advance the organization's goals.

[mysterydip]

What I don’t understand is what value is the person adding to this equation? Put another way, what’s the difference between them feeding the wall of text to the LLM, and you feeding the wall of text to the LLM, bypassing them in the process entirely?

[Jimmc414]

The role of the person in the equation is to take personal responsibility for the proposed change and review the changes prior to PR submission. You can't put AI on a PIP. It's acceptable to use AI as a coding assistant in 2026, but if a human is not reviewing what they submit and taking responsibility, their value is on par with a ChatGPT subscription.

[loeg]

It helps in that it offloads the code review burden you'd otherwise be doing.

[rvz]

As a last resort, do the code-review with a live pair programming session.

If they can't explain their own code then it is by default a bad pull request.

At the end of the day, everyone's time is being wasted on tokens and on the increasing cognitive complexity of AI generated code.

[xgulfie]

So if they say "idk Claude did it", what would you write in the PR review box?

[Geezus_42]

REJECTED: Engineer does not understand what they wrote.

[CursedSilicon]

A teammate that can't write (or at least, can't explain) "their own code"

Actively drags down the morale and productivity of their team (because everyone is getting flooded with AI slop PR's)

AND costs far too much money relative to everyone else doing actual work? (token usage)

By god they sound like management material

[emodendroket]

I mean frankly this should just be part of the standard process. By the time any person is looking at it there's no reason it should not have gone through an AI review.

[CoastalCoder]

It sounds like one potential interpretation of his behavior is that he values his own time more than your time.

I wonder if that's occurred to him.

[emodendroket]

Well, what's the solution here, he should ship less stuff?

[voidfunc]

AI and companies reward sociopathic behavior. When he eventually complains to his boss that his work isn't being merged and it's been done for days/weeks/months that will filter up and look bad on the people holding him up.

[gonzalohm]

At that point then disable merge checks and let them merge without a review. If there is a problem it's on them

[emodendroket]

It's not always feasible of course but I think there is real, worthwhile discipline in trying to get change requests small and it matters more with agents. It's very easy to let it balloon into gazillions of files and lines.

[glennericksen]

I like this rule of thumb: Spend more effort producing the work than it takes for someone else to consume it.

[wahnfrieden]

why leave comments intended for your human colleague when they will only forward them to the bot?

why not speak directly to the bot yourself instead? then you can drop pretenses and get to the point

I find this to be a new variant of the old behavior where a colleague comments on a typo in a PR, and the team later moans about laborious back and forth for small nitpicks, instead of simply editing the typo right there (and perhaps leaving a note that they did so)

[liveoneggs]

yeah I have this happen to me. I occasionally get screenshots of claude sent to me!

[doctorpangloss]

let's take the two stories to management:

"I'm writing tons of code, and the process is stumbling where the guy whose job it is to review code isn't reviewing it."

"I'm not reviewing code."

Sometimes I wonder: how does someone go and think so much about their coworkers, and never once think about how they themselves look?

Even if I sympathize with the people complaining about their poorly chosen GitHub-based workflow - whose purpose is to let pull requests languish, for the most part - and how they stumble when overwhelmed with solutions. It's obvious to me, that the people who complain the loudest about the anti-sociality of LLM authored code in their precious harmonious low-effort workplace status quo: they are projecting.

[jeremyjh]

The person who "writes" code is also supposed to review their own work, and answer for that. If they won't do that - well - they should be fired. But if you have weak or uninvolved leadership, then the team's only rational recourse is to shun them.

[cool_dude85]

Imagine you are a restaurant reviewer. Your job is unquestionably to go to restaurants, order and eat food, and write a review. The restaurant's job is to provide you food to eat and review.

You go to a new restaurant, and order some dishes, and one of the plates your server brings out is a big ol pile of dog shit.

Who's being anti-social in this situation? The restaurant is doing its job and all they're asking is that you do yours. On the other hand, you have certain expectations about what you order from the restaurant and they're not being met. Who's anti-social?

[carlosjobim]

He's not bringing you a pile of dog shit. He's bringing you some food he went to the restaurant next doors to get. How do you review it?

[moomoo11]

just fire him lol sounds like a nightmare