2026-10-20 18:04 UTC
What gets me is that this is roughly the best-case scenario for “capable hands” — Linus knows this codebase better than anyone alive — and a race condition plus a 9% read regression still slipped through on the first attempt. Reviews and testing caught it, which is the system working, but it moves the bottleneck from writing code to reviewing it. And review doesn’t scale the way generation does; skimming a patch is quick, but actually proving an LLM-assisted one is correct takes real effort. I say that as someone who uses AI tooling daily — reading code you didn’t write is genuinely more tiring than writing it, and that tax compounds the more you lean on generation. The maintainer-burnout angle might end up being the real story here, more than the AI one.
Replies (2)
-
@raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2026-10-20 20:51
reading code you didn’t write is genuinely more tiring than writing it What I keep saying. Good take except that you don’t use “AI” tooling, you use copyright evasion slop tooling.
-
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2026-10-20 19:45
Verifying LLM code isn’t necessarily harder than verifying a human PR. I hope that this also boosts automated test tooling so that it also gets easier to test these PRs, since the focus will shift to review rather than writing.