[trey-jones]

To me, an old guy, I would rather have LLM doing (assisting with) the code review than the actual code production. Is that stupid?

[electroly]

LLMs are great at reviewing. This is not stupid at all if it's what you want; you can still derive benefit from LLMs this way. I like to have them review at the design level where I write a spec document, and the LLM reviews and advises. I don't like having the LLM actually write the document, even though they are capable of it. I do like them writing the code, but I totally get it; it's no different than me and the spec documents.

[trey-jones]

Right, I'd say this is the best value I've gotten out of it so far: I'm planning to build this thing in this way, does that seem like a good idea to you? Sometimes I get good feedback that something else would be better.

[torginus]

If LLMs are great at reviewing, why do they produce the quality of code they produce?

[groundzeros2015]

This makes sense to me.

I need to make decisions about how things are implemented. Even if it can pick “a way” that’s not necessarily going to be a coherent design that I want.

In contrast for review I already made the choices and now it’s just providing feedback. More information I can choose to follow or ignore.

[Leynos]

Take a look at CodeRabbit and Sourcery if you want to give that a go.