Comment by practice9
25 days ago
It's because HN is in AI meta-psychosis :)
Our experience is very similar except we didn't really have a review process before, and now LLMs find bugs before PRs get merged in main.
We had 5x-100x speedups in some legacy but important pipelines, with no regressions (validated after extensively by humans). It's not that the code was actively bad. It's just only 1-5% people in the local SWE market would be able to write code that runs so fast and efficient and benchmark it correctly.
We found a subtle correctness bug that was in production for half of the decade (both GPT-5 and Claude Opus were able to find it), confirmed by human after.
And we keep finding subtle bugs that have been introduced by humans before (despite the human reviews, the particular domain is just difficult no matter how many docs and comments and tests one writes)
I am convinced human reviews are overhyped in the industry. We've done it in my company since we started it, and bugs keep happening. People are just terrible at spotting them in the middle of 100 lines of correct code.
Machines, OTOH, are very good at it. I am currently trying to make the code review experience better for humans by not just having the AI review the code, but interact with the human, pointing out potential problems, bad patterns, perhaps hiding some code (e.g. renamings, formatting changes).
Developers still want to review the code, despite provably being bad at spotting bugs, because they want to actually keep knowledge of what's being modified in the code base, so I think this is the best approach.
Maybe the humans are just overwhelmed by the amount of poorly readable AI code you're throwing at them? Maybe they'd be better at reviewing if the code was written by somebody who had put thought into the code instead?
Like we had done for the 10 years prior? Don’t think so. BTW the ai code is as readable as the human’s. Never had to call out people on the AI code being unreadable.
3 replies →