[ovaistariq]

I don’t see much benefit from the disclosure alone. Ultimately, this is code that needs to be reviewed. There is going to continue to be more and more AI assisted code generation, to the point where we see the same level of adoption of these tools as "Autocomplete". Why not solve this through tooling? I have had great effect with tools like Greptile, Cursor's BugBot and Claude Code.

[wmf]

If the code is obviously low quality and AI-generated then it doesn't need to be fully reviewed actually. You can just reject the PR.

[nullc]

> You can just reject the PR.

And with a better and more useful response. Instead of wasting time on the technical details, you can give feedback like "this isn't the sort of change that AI is likely to be helpful with, though if you want to keep trying make at least sure your PRs pass the tests." or "If you'd like to share your prompts we might be able to make some suggestions, we've found on this project it's useful to include <X>".

[Jaxan]

Sure it needs to be reviewed. But the author does more than just reviewing, they help the person submitting the PR to improve their PR. If the other side is an AI, it can save them some time.