4 ms·
By far the largest review-effort PRs of my career have been in the past year, due to mid-sized LLM-built features. Multiple rounds of other signoffs saying "lg
by Groxx 1y ago
By far the largest review-effort PRs of my career have been in the past year, due to mid-sized LLM-built features. Multiple rounds of other signoffs saying "lgtm" with only minor style comments only for me to finally read it and see that no, it is not even remotely acceptable and we have several uses built by the same team that would fail immediately if it was merged, to say nothing of the thousands of other users that might also be affected. Stuff the reviewers have experience with and didn't think about because they got stuck in the "looks plausible" rut, rather than "is correct".
So it goes back for changes. It returns the next day with complete rewrites of large chunks. More "lgtm" from others. More incredibly obvious flaws, race conditions, the works.
And then round three repeats mistakes that came up in round one, because LLMs don't learn.
This is not a future style of work that I look forward to participating in.
- tobyhinloopen 1y agoI think a future with LLM coding requires much more tests, both testing happy and bad flows.
- danielbln 1y agoIt also needs proper guideline enforcement. If an engineer produces poorly tested and unreviewed code, then the buck stops with them. This is a human problem more than it is a tool problem.
- zelphirkalt 1y agoI think the issue is with people taking mental shortcuts and thus no longer properly thinking about design decisions and the bigger picture in terms of concepts of the software.
- Izkata 1y ago> saying "lgtm" This took like an entire minute before I figured out it meant "looks good to me". It's too strongly "let's GoToMeeting" in my head, which would have implied "we need to talk about how bad this is", the opposite of what you meant.