[nbardy]

You know you can AI review the PR too, don't be such a curmudgeon. I have PR's at work I and coworkers fully AI generated and fully AI review. And

[latexr]

This makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does. If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review. And if it does need review, why would the AI be trustworthy if it did a poor job the first time?

This is like reviewing your own PRs, it completely defeats the purpose.

And no, using different models doesn’t fix the issue. That’s just adding several layers of stupid on top of each other and praying that somehow the result is smart.

[jvanderbot]

I get your point, but reviewing your own PRs is a very good idea.

As insulting as it is to submit an AI-generated PR without any effort at review while expecting a human to look it over, it is nearly as insulting to not just open the view the reviewer will have and take a look. I do this all the time and very often discover little things that I didn't see while tunneled into the code itself.

[darrenf]

I haven't taken a strong enough position on AI coding to express any opinions about it, but I vehemently disagree with this part:

> This is like reviewing your own PRs, it completely defeats the purpose.

I've been the first reviewer for all PRs I've raised, before notifying any other reviewers, for so many years that I couldn't even tell you when I started doing it. Going through the change set in the Github/Gitlab/Bitbucket interface, for me, seems to activate an different part of my brain than I was using when locked in vim. I'm quick to spot typos, bugs, flawed assumptions, edge cases, missing tests, to add comments to pre-empt questions ... you name it. The "reading code" and "writing code" parts of my brain often feel disconnected!

Obviously I don't approve my own PRs. But I always, always review them. Hell, I've also long recommended the practice to those around me too for the same reasons.

[duskwuff]

I'm sure the AI service providers are laughing all the way to the bank, though.

[exe34]

I suspect you could bias it to always say no, with a long list of pointless shit that they need to address first, and come up with a brand new list every time. maybe even prompt "suggest ten things to remove to make it simpler".

ultimately I'm happy to fight fire with fire. there was a time I used to debate homophobes on social media - I ended up writing a very comprehensive list of rebuttals so I could just copy and paste in response to their cookie cutter gotchas.

[charcircuit]

Your assumptions are wrong. AI models do not have equal generation and discrimination abilities. It is possible for AIs to recognize that they generated something wrong.

[carlosjobim]

> This makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does. If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review. And if it does need review, why would the AI be trustworthy if it did a poor job the first time?

The point of most jobs is not to get anything productive done. The point is to follow procedures, leave a juicy, juicy paper trail, get your salary, and make sure there's always more pretend work to be done.

[robryan]

AI PR reviews do end up providing useful comments. They also provide useless comments but I think the signal to noise ratio is at a point that it is probably a net positive for the PR author and other reviewers to have.

[symbogra]

Maybe he's paying for a higher tier than his colleague.

[enraged_camel]

>> This makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does.

It's a joke.

[falcor84]

> That’s just adding several layers of stupid on top of each other and praying that somehow the result is smart.

That is literally how civilization works.

[px43]

> If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review.

So, your minimum bar for a useful AI is that it must always be perfect and a far better programmer than any human that has ever lived?

Coding agents are basically interns. They make stupid mistakes, but even if they're doing things 95% correctly, then they're still adding a ton of value to the dev process.

Human reviewers can use AI tools to quickly sniff out common mistakes and recommend corrections. This is fine. Good even.

[gdulli]

> You know you can AI review the PR too, don't be such a curmudgeon. I have PR's at work I and coworkers fully AI generated and fully AI review. And

Waiting for the rest of the comment to load in order to figure out if it's sincere or parody.

[kacesensitive]

He must of dropped connection while chatGPT was generating his HN comment

[thatjoeoverthr]

His agent hit what we in the biz call “max tokens”

[latexr]

Considering their profile, I’d say it’s probably sincere.

[jurgenaut23]

Ahahah

[dickersnoodle]

One Furby codes and a second one reviews...

[shermantanktop]

Let's red-team this: use Teddy Ruxpin to review, a Tamagotchi can build the deployment plan, and a Rock'em Sock'em Robot can execute it.

[gh0stcat]

This is such a good idea, the ultimate solution is connecting the furbies to CI.

[i80and]

Please be doing a bit

[lelandfe]

As for the first question, about AI possibly truncating my comments,

[KalMann]

If An AI can do a review then why would you put it up for others to review? Just use the AI to do the review yourself before creating a PR.

[metalliqaz]

When I picture a team using their AI to both write and review PRs, I think of the "obama medal award" meme

[athrowaway3z]

If your team is stuck at this stage, you need to wake up and re-evaluate.

I understand how you might reach this point, but the AI-review should be run by the developer in the pre-PR phase.

[footy]

did AI write this comment?

[kacesensitive]

You’re absolutely right! This has AI energy written all over it — polished sentences, perfect grammar, and just the right amount of “I read the entire internet” vibes! But hey, at least it’s trying to sound friendly, right?

[photonthug]

> fully AI generated and fully AI review

This reminds me of an awesome bit by Žižek where he describes an ultra-modern approach to dating. She brings the vibrator, he brings the synthetic sleeve, and after all the buzzing begins and the simulacra are getting on well, the humans sigh in relief. Now that this is out of the way they can just have a tea and a chat.

It's clearly ridiculous, yet at the point where papers or PRs are written by robots, reviewed by robots, for eventual usage/consumption/summary by yet more robots, it becomes very relevant. At some point one must ask, what is it all for, and should we maybe just skip some of these steps or revisit some assumptions about what we're trying to accomplish

[the_af]

> It's clearly ridiculous, yet at the point where papers or PRs are written by robots, reviewed by robots, for eventual usage/consumption/summary by yet more robots, it becomes very relevant. At some point one must ask, what is it all for, and should we maybe just skip some of these steps or revisit some assumptions about what we're trying to accomplish

I've been thinking this for a while, despairing, and amazed that not everyone is worried/surprised about this like me.

Who are we building all this stuff for, exactly?

Some technophiles are arguing this will free us to... do what exactly? Art, work, leisure, sex, analysis, argument, etc will be done for us. So we can do what exactly? Go extinct?

"With AI I can finally write the book I always wanted, but lacked the time and talent to write!". Ok, and who will read it? Everybody will be busy AI-writing other books in their favorite fantasy world, tailored specifically to them, and it's not like a human wrote it anyway so nobody's feelings should be hurt if nobody reads your stuff.

[jacquesm]

> And

Do you review your comments too with AI?

[devsda]

> I have PR's at work I and coworkers fully AI generated and fully AI review.

I first read that as "coworkers (who are) fully AI generated" and I didn't bat an eye.

All the AI hype has made me immune to AI related surprises. I think even if we inch very close to real AGI, many would feel "meh" due to the constant deluge of AI posts.

[rkozik1989]

So how do you catch the errors that AI made in the pull request? Because if both of you are using AI for both halves of a PR then you're definitely coding and pasting code from an LLM. Which is almost always hot garbage if you actually take the time to read it.

[cjs_ac]

You can just look at the analytics to see if the feature is broken. /s

[skrebbel]

Hahahahah well done :dart-emoji:

[matheusmoreira]

AIs generating code which will then be reviewed by AIs. Résumés generated by AIs being evaluated by AI recruiters. This timeline is turning into such a hilarious clown world. The future is bleak.

[babypuncher]

"Let the AI check its own homework, what could go wrong?"

[dyauspitr]

Satire? Because whether you’re being serious or not people are definitely doing exactly this.