6 ms·

> I don't know, claude did that I'm the type of reviewer that actually reads code and asks probing questions, and I've heard this from junior and senior devs a

> I don't know, claude did that I'm the type of reviewer that actually reads code and asks probing questions, and I've heard this from junior and senior devs alike. It's maddening how people say this with a straight face and expect to keep their jobs. If people are pushing code they don't understand, they're liability to their team, product, and employer.

boringg 1y ago
It is going to happen with higher frequency - buckle up!
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
qazxcvbnmlp 1y ago
"I don't know Claude did that" isn't a bad thing in and of itself... If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value than someone who cares about reading every line of code.
- torben-friis 1y ago
  Any situation where you’re submitting under your signature code to production without knowing what it does should be at the very least cause for a talk. I’m kinda shocked that this even has to be said.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- ponector 1y ago
  If you don't understand you code how you can be sure it's correct? You actually are pushing it into your colleagues who will verify and fix the code later.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    Testing. The only thing that changed with AI is that the narrative went from "you can't always know perfectly what every part of the program does" to "don't even try".
    - ponector 1y ago
      Sad reality is test engineers headcount over last years was cut even more than developers. Most companies see testing as obstacle and unnecessary costs and has no will to invest into testing.
    - 9dev 1y ago
      But the LLM writes the tests too. Probably even made some private methods public so it can test them, because you asked it to write a comprehensive test suite. It’s a beautiful self-jerk circle of shitty code based on wrong assumptions proven by correct tests testing shitty code based on wrong assumptions…
      - johntash 1y ago
        Or the wonderful loop of "These test steps are still failing, let's try something simpler and remove the failing tests. Great! The tests are passing now!"
  - rafaelero 1y ago
    To be fair, even if you understand it that's doesn't mean it will work well.
- oblio 1y ago
  You, sir, have "executive" written all over you.
  - jalapenos 1y ago
    Savage
- AndrewDucker 1y ago
  If you "don't know" then how could you have "easily verified it was correct"?
  - johntash 1y ago
    I think they were claiming claude easily verified it? i.e. they have total faith in claude to not mess up
    - AndrewDucker 1y ago
      That's an interesting claim. I wonder how they would come to believe that.
- behringer 1y ago
  The policeman says to the judge, on the stand "I don't know why my sworn affidavit says that, your honor. But I can write twice as many affidavits now so it's all for the best."
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rapind 1y ago
  > If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value. This is the future fellow greybeards. We will be shunned for being try-hards, and when it turns out we were right?... Well no one likes a know it all.
- Vegenoid 1y ago
  If it’s easily verified as correct, then you should have verified its correctness before bringing it to someone more senior and asking for their help, and so you should be able to explain why it is there when they ask.
- jalapenos 1y ago
  Why do we need them then? If they're some dumb passthrough I can just replace them with a background agent
tlonny 1y ago
The rank disrespect of somebody asking you to review something they haven't even looked at is eye watering. I feel like AI-induced brain-rot of engineers is inevitable. Unless we see AI leapfrog into something close to AGI in the future (certainly not ruling this out), I think there will be very lucrative careers available to engineers who can maintain a balanced relationship with AI.
- kardianos 1y ago
  I just felt this recently. I was sent some code for me to put into prod, a long running service. And in one func, which returned an error (Go) but still called "os.Exit" in each error handler rather then returning. Fixing the issue was a small matter. But the amount of disrespect I felt, that I looked at it closer then anyone else apparently (which wasn't really all that close at all), when they were ostensibly building this code, that disrespect was just immense.
- roarcher 1y ago
  I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets viscerally irritated when I'm asked to review a PR that was obviously generated. You didn't take the time to write this code, but you expect me to take the time make sure it's correct, which will take far longer than a regular PR because there's no reason to assume an LLM even understood the task. Next time just be honest and ask me to do your work for you.
  - virtue3 1y ago
    My boss decided to start putting out a ton of PRs from Devin at one point. I told him I'm spending more time reviewing his PRs than he was saving.
  - Ntrails 1y ago
    > You didn't take the time to write this code, but you expect me to take the time make sure it's correct So, I guess there are a couple parts here right? I might not take the time to write the code, but surely I am on the hook to demonstrate that I've tested the code or have very good reason to believe it's correct? If people are pushing PRs [of any meaningful complexity] without knowing whether they work in the general case that sounds like a failure of process and/or training. For me PRs are about catching edges?
moomoo11 1y ago
It’s pretty great actually. We can filter out useless people faster. The days of easy 400k plus TC are over and only people deserving of that should get it imo. And btw I worked with idiots before, and I’m sure I will in the future. But there should be less of them.
userbinator 1y ago
The correct response to that is "what's your job?" It's baffling how little awareness some people have.
- jalapenos 1y ago
  "What would you say... you do here?"
  - chii 1y ago
    "get paid to ask claude to do the work of course!"
2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
Pre AI I can understand why you might not know. There have been instances where I find a recipe, take what I need, but there’s some code I can’t understand or find an answer to. But time pressure, so I just add a comment and ask around for ideas. These days, just ask the llm.
throwaway7783 1y ago
100%. This has in general become a trend across my company. Less so developers, more so everyone else spitting LLM generated content, and asking real people to review and provide feedback. I mean , WTF.
- johnthescott 1y ago
  amen.
_heimdall 1y ago
My interactions with Gemini tend to be fairly slow, but it's because I don't give it any extra permissions, make it research and plan an implementation first, and check each file update one at a time. So far it has still been a bit more productive for me, though the margin is low. I get more product sork done on the order of 5-15%, I tend to have more test coverage as I focus more heavily on that, and I can focus more often on architecture. The last one is a win for me, I prefer that work and find that I can review code quickly enough to make it worth the tradeoff.
aitchnyu 1y ago
Is there any tool that approve a given PR is easy to review? Or should we use a checklist of function length, cognitive complexity etc?
codebolt 1y ago
In certain situations I'd argue it's a calculated risk worth taking. Let's say I'm tasked with adding a much-needed feature to an older legacy application that is built using frameworks and libraries I'm not familiar with, possibly also with with weak docs. If Claude is able to produce a self-contained piece of code that looks correct when you read through it and behaves correctly during (thorough) testing, then it sure has saved me (and my company) a lot of time and effort, even though we are deploying code we may not fully understand.

boringg 1y ago

It is going to happen with higher frequency - buckle up!

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

qazxcvbnmlp 1y ago

"I don't know Claude did that" isn't a bad thing in and of itself... If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value than someone who cares about reading every line of code.

torben-friis 1y ago
Any situation where you’re submitting under your signature code to production without knowing what it does should be at the very least cause for a talk. I’m kinda shocked that this even has to be said.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ponector 1y ago
If you don't understand you code how you can be sure it's correct? You actually are pushing it into your colleagues who will verify and fix the code later.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  Testing. The only thing that changed with AI is that the narrative went from "you can't always know perfectly what every part of the program does" to "don't even try".
  - ponector 1y ago
    Sad reality is test engineers headcount over last years was cut even more than developers. Most companies see testing as obstacle and unnecessary costs and has no will to invest into testing.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    But the LLM writes the tests too. Probably even made some private methods public so it can test them, because you asked it to write a comprehensive test suite. It’s a beautiful self-jerk circle of shitty code based on wrong assumptions proven by correct tests testing shitty code based on wrong assumptions…
    - johntash 1y ago
      Or the wonderful loop of "These test steps are still failing, let's try something simpler and remove the failing tests. Great! The tests are passing now!"
- rafaelero 1y ago
  To be fair, even if you understand it that's doesn't mean it will work well.
oblio 1y ago
You, sir, have "executive" written all over you.
- jalapenos 1y ago
  Savage
AndrewDucker 1y ago
If you "don't know" then how could you have "easily verified it was correct"?
- johntash 1y ago
  I think they were claiming claude easily verified it? i.e. they have total faith in claude to not mess up
  - AndrewDucker 1y ago
    That's an interesting claim. I wonder how they would come to believe that.
behringer 1y ago
The policeman says to the judge, on the stand "I don't know why my sworn affidavit says that, your honor. But I can write twice as many affidavits now so it's all for the best."
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rapind 1y ago
> If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value. This is the future fellow greybeards. We will be shunned for being try-hards, and when it turns out we were right?... Well no one likes a know it all.
Vegenoid 1y ago
If it’s easily verified as correct, then you should have verified its correctness before bringing it to someone more senior and asking for their help, and so you should be able to explain why it is there when they ask.
jalapenos 1y ago
Why do we need them then? If they're some dumb passthrough I can just replace them with a background agent

tlonny 1y ago

The rank disrespect of somebody asking you to review something they haven't even looked at is eye watering. I feel like AI-induced brain-rot of engineers is inevitable. Unless we see AI leapfrog into something close to AGI in the future (certainly not ruling this out), I think there will be very lucrative careers available to engineers who can maintain a balanced relationship with AI.

kardianos 1y ago
I just felt this recently. I was sent some code for me to put into prod, a long running service. And in one func, which returned an error (Go) but still called "os.Exit" in each error handler rather then returning. Fixing the issue was a small matter. But the amount of disrespect I felt, that I looked at it closer then anyone else apparently (which wasn't really all that close at all), when they were ostensibly building this code, that disrespect was just immense.
roarcher 1y ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets viscerally irritated when I'm asked to review a PR that was obviously generated. You didn't take the time to write this code, but you expect me to take the time make sure it's correct, which will take far longer than a regular PR because there's no reason to assume an LLM even understood the task. Next time just be honest and ask me to do your work for you.
- virtue3 1y ago
  My boss decided to start putting out a ton of PRs from Devin at one point. I told him I'm spending more time reviewing his PRs than he was saving.
- Ntrails 1y ago
  > You didn't take the time to write this code, but you expect me to take the time make sure it's correct So, I guess there are a couple parts here right? I might not take the time to write the code, but surely I am on the hook to demonstrate that I've tested the code or have very good reason to believe it's correct? If people are pushing PRs [of any meaningful complexity] without knowing whether they work in the general case that sounds like a failure of process and/or training. For me PRs are about catching edges?

moomoo11 1y ago

It’s pretty great actually. We can filter out useless people faster. The days of easy 400k plus TC are over and only people deserving of that should get it imo. And btw I worked with idiots before, and I’m sure I will in the future. But there should be less of them.

userbinator 1y ago

The correct response to that is "what's your job?" It's baffling how little awareness some people have.

jalapenos 1y ago
"What would you say... you do here?"
- chii 1y ago
  "get paid to ask claude to do the work of course!"

2muchcoffeeman 1y ago

Pre AI I can understand why you might not know. There have been instances where I find a recipe, take what I need, but there’s some code I can’t understand or find an answer to. But time pressure, so I just add a comment and ask around for ideas. These days, just ask the llm.

throwaway7783 1y ago

100%. This has in general become a trend across my company. Less so developers, more so everyone else spitting LLM generated content, and asking real people to review and provide feedback. I mean , WTF.

johnthescott 1y ago
amen.

_heimdall 1y ago

My interactions with Gemini tend to be fairly slow, but it's because I don't give it any extra permissions, make it research and plan an implementation first, and check each file update one at a time. So far it has still been a bit more productive for me, though the margin is low. I get more product sork done on the order of 5-15%, I tend to have more test coverage as I focus more heavily on that, and I can focus more often on architecture. The last one is a win for me, I prefer that work and find that I can review code quickly enough to make it worth the tradeoff.

aitchnyu 1y ago

Is there any tool that approve a given PR is easy to review? Or should we use a checklist of function length, cognitive complexity etc?

codebolt 1y ago

In certain situations I'd argue it's a calculated risk worth taking. Let's say I'm tasked with adding a much-needed feature to an older legacy application that is built using frameworks and libraries I'm not familiar with, possibly also with with weak docs. If Claude is able to produce a self-contained piece of code that looks correct when you read through it and behaves correctly during (thorough) testing, then it sure has saved me (and my company) a lot of time and effort, even though we are deploying code we may not fully understand.