3 ms·

And there's a ton of human incentives here to take shortcuts in the review part. The process almost pushes you to drop your guard: you spend less physical time

And there's a ton of human incentives here to take shortcuts in the review part. The process almost pushes you to drop your guard: you spend less physical time observing the code while you write, you get huge chunks of code dropped on you, iterations change a lot to keep a mind model, there's FOMO involved about the speed gain you're supposed to get... We're going to see worse review quality just by a mater of UX and friction of the tool.

judahmeek 10mo ago
Yes! It depends on the company, of course, but I think plenty of people are going to fall for the perverse incentives while reviewing AI output for tech debt. The perverse incentives being that tech debt is non-obvious & therefore really easy to avoid responsibility for. Meanwhile, velocity is highly obvious & usually tired directly to personal & team performance metrics. The only way I see to resolve this is strict enforcement of a comprehensive QA process during both the planning & iteration of an AI-assisted development cycle. But when even people working at Anthropic are talking about running multiple agents in parallel, I get the idea that CTO's are not taking this seriously.
- andrekandre 10mo ago
  > enforcement of a comprehensive QA process during both the planning & iteration of an AI-assisted development cycle and a new bottleneck appears... (i don't disagree with this take though, qa should be done from start to finish and integral every step of the way)