Comment by rafram

20 hours ago

> you can trust the models to write and review the code

You definitely cannot!

Reminds me of going on linkedin and seeing all these sales and product people who are talking big game about engineering now. Well yeah they are definitely producing something but not sure I'd call it "engineering."

You can trust them to flag some things during review that may or may not be relevant. But just like with human review and unit testing, you cannot guarantee the absence of bugs after an LLM code review. It's just another set of (virtual) eyeballs.

  • I trust them somewhat to flag bugs. I don't trust them to produce clean, maintainable code - even code maintainable by the LLM itself. Any sufficiently complex LLM changeset can be assumed to contain duplicated logic, method scope creep, and code changes without accompanying documentation changes that the model often will not catch no matter how many rounds of review you run. If those issues make it into a commit, the next time you ask the LLM to update some of the functionality that it introduced earlier, bugs will creep in.

    • I find that documentation creep is wildly better in AI coded environments than human ones. You can deterministic force a documentation sync process on every PR, documentation rot has gotten way better.