Comment by roarcher
2 months ago
> LLM use in litigation drafting is thus akin to insurgent/guerilla warfare: it take little time, energy, or thinking to create, yet orders of magnitude more to analyze and refute.
The same goes for coding. I have coworkers who use it to generate entire PRs. They can crank out two thousand lines of code that includes tests "proving" that it works, but may or may not actually be nonsense, in minutes. And then some poor bastard like me has to spend half a day reviewing it.
When code is written by a human that I know and trust, I can assume that they at least made reasonable, if not always correct, decisions. I can't assume that with AI, so I have to scrutinize every single line. And when it inevitably turns out that the AI has come up with some ass-backwards architecture, the burden is on me to understand it and explain why it's wrong and how to fix it to the "developer" who hasn't bothered to even read his own PR.
I'm seriously considering proposing that if you use AI to generate a PR at my company, the story points get credited to the reviewer.
Evil voice: "I don't mind not getting credits for the story points. The story was AI-generated anyway."
If code smells like LLM, then you walk to said coworker and ask them to explain it for you. Play dumb if necessary.
Or you use YOUR LLM to review the PR :D
...and wtf, you get "credited" story points for finishing tasks? That sounds completely insane.
> you get "credited" story points for finishing tasks? That sounds completely insane.
Developers' names are attached to stories, and stories have points on them. Why is that insane, and how does your company track who did what?
I propose that the name on the story should be that of the reviewer since they did the work.
We don't really track individual features to people in a way I could call "crediting" - as in nobody really checks afterwards who did how many story points in a sprint.
As long as the team as a whole gets stuff done, everything is good.
Because story points is a tool for the business to know when optimistically a thing could be done. Or more realistically get a decent "no sooner than" estimation of the task.
Using them for anything else, or by anyone else, like scoring the team or like here, individual contributors, is idiotic.