Post #4395035

2026-08-05 12:54 UTC

In short I'd say AI reviews fail to capture the essence of what reviews are about. They are not about preemptively catching every possible bug at whatever cost. Reviews are an inherently human process that involves exchanging information and opinions to find better solutions, compromises and overall to build better software and become better developers.

Replies (3)

@Raccoon@techhub.social 2026-08-05 17:29

@pac85@social.treehouse.systems This hits on a couple of the ongoing issues with trying to use AI for productivity in general. You can't trust it, and even when it's right it's not necessarily being useful, so it just creates all this text you have to go through... Which ends up being more time spent on messing with the random text generator than actually building understanding within the team and pushing progress on the project.

Open ##4434679
@401matthall@mastodon.xyz 2026-08-05 18:22

@pac85@social.treehouse.systems An AI review will _always_ miss intent. It cannot infer intent even when it _reads_ like it's inferred intent. But it sure will generate some words for ya. <3

Open ##4434681
@madengineering@hachyderm.io 2026-08-05 18:34

@pac85@social.treehouse.systems It sounds like a worse version of PCI compliance, where an it technician is certifying that a website is secure enough to take credit cards. The process starts by the site being scanned and then a report being made of everything that could on any way conceivably be used to hack the site. The one time I did it, I remember having to explain with a straight face that no, it's not possible to hack a site through a referenced image.

Open ##4434683