Comment by alansaber
6 hours ago
"Pull requests created by AI must have been fully verified with human use." should always be a bare minimum requirement.
6 hours ago
"Pull requests created by AI must have been fully verified with human use." should always be a bare minimum requirement.
> "Pull requests [] must have been fully verified with human use."
I would expect this is entirely uncontroversial and the AI qualifier redundant.
If you have good tests, certain types of change can be merged without manual testing. One problem specific to AI is that it has a tendency to game/bypass/nerf/disable tests, as opposed to actually making the code do the correct thing.
I would hope that actually testing the changes is done regardless of whether or not AI is used
AI is so smart these days that I typically just ask Claude to verify the code for me.
This sort of request may have made sense in the old days but as the quality of generated code rapidly increases, so does the necessity of human intervention decrease.
I literally just scrolled past a thread discussing the psychology of shamelessness and misplaced self-confidence that creates drive-by AI pull request spam wasting everyone’s time and see this comment…
If you're going to put something on someone else's desk, you're going to have to own it.
If you don't check it yourself, then you're going to own whatever your tooling misses, and also own the amount of others' time you waste through what the project has decided to categorize as negligence, which will make you look worse than if you simply made an honest mistake.
If you care so little, why are you even prompting at all? Surely you can leave it to its own devices without troubling it with your wishes? It seems like the farther you go down this path, the more likely it is that it'll have something better to do.