[babblingfish]

This is consistent with my own observations of LLM-generated code increasing the burden on reviewers. You either review the code carefully, putting more effort into it than the actual original author. Or you approve it without careful review. I feel like the latter is becoming more common. This is basically creating tech debt that will only be realized later by future maintainers

[bunderbunder]

It’s a prisoner’s dilemma, too. The person who commits to giving code review its due diligence is going to end up spending an inordinate amount of time reviewing others’ changes, leaving less time to completing their own assignments. And they’re likely to request a lot of changes, too. That’s socially untenable for most people, especially ones who clearly aren’t completing as many story points as their teammates. Next thing you know your manager is giving you less than stellar performance reviews, and the AI slopcoders on your team are getting the promotions and being put into position to influence how team norms and culture evolve over time.

The worst part is, this isn’t me speculatively catastrophizing. I’m just observing how my own organization’s culture has changed over the past couple of years.

It’s hitting the less senior team members hardest, too. They are generally less skilled at reading code and therefore less able to keep up with the rapid growth in code volume. They are also more likely to get assigned the (ever growing volume of) defect tickets so the more senior members can keep on vibecoding their way to glory.

[mghackerlady]

or, if you know it was written by an LLM, reject it