4 ms·

> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed

> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.

Jensson 4mo ago
It will help if your wall of text cost less tokens than theirs, they will run out before you do if you have the same company quota per person.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- Telemakhos 4mo ago
  I'm not sure what the right vocabulary would be to describe this, but this sounds more like the calculations behind nuclear war than a healthy collegiality or cooperative work relationship. This sets up a competition to determine a loser based on resource scarcity, not a way to achieve mutual goals to advance the organization's goals.
  - toomuchtodo 4mo ago
    “Token Standoff.” The most efficient token consumer wins. This mutually assured time efficiency destruction is driven by management support of aggressive use of AI in an attempt to, in some combination, increase productive and constrain labor costs. AI isn’t making developers more productive – it’s making them busier - https://leaddev.com/ai/ai-isnt-making-developers-more-productive-its-making-them-busier https://leaddev.com/ai/ai-isnt-making-developers-more-produc... - June 11th, 2026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
    - fallous 4mo ago
      Mutually Assured Distraction.
    - dormento 4mo ago
      Caveman consume fewest token win office token war.
  - corndoge 4mo ago
    You are thinking of "game theory" and it's what happens when your coworkers don't give a shit. And all it takes is one, both because they can degrade product quality faster than you can gate it or fix it and because the performance assessment techniques are about 3 years behind the state of LLMs and if they play, you have to also or you'll get shit on from such a height you won't even know what hit you. And once you start playing the game, then one day - it doesn't take long - you wake up and ask yourself if this is how you want to spend 8 hours of your life monday through friday. I think a lot of us are saying no but now need to figure out where our money is going to come from. I don't have the answers.
  - witx 4mo ago
    When someone submits PRs fulky made by Clade any "cooperative work" is out the door
  - dormento 4mo ago
    In a previous job, we had this saying "killing penguins" we used when referring to throwing more computing resources (more GNU/Linux instances) than necessary at a problem. In today's landscape of indiscriminate AI spending, I bet we could repurpose the term to mean "actually negatively impacting the arctic biodiversity". We are all throwing penguins at each other.
- mattas 4mo ago
  Also, make sure your wall of text prompts Claude to be extra verbose to really burn through that quota of theirs.
  - bigiain 4mo ago
    Now I'm wondering how hard it'd be to zipbomb their context window? (And _now_ I'm wondering how hard it'd be to forkbomb their agentic workflow?)
- politician 4mo ago
  Try to automate the adversarial PR review-rebuttal loop "for productivity", so the back-and-forth between the AIs can run over night.
- smrq 4mo ago
  More like they will climb even higher on the lighting-dollars-on-fire leaderboard.
rvz 4mo ago
As a last resort, do the code-review with a live pair programming session. If they can't explain their own code then it is by default a bad pull request. At the end of the day, everyone's time is being wasted on tokens and on the increasing cognitive complexity of AI generated code.
- xgulfie 4mo ago
  So if they say "idk Claude did it", what would you write in the PR review box?
  - Geezus_42 4mo ago
    REJECTED: Engineer does not understand what they wrote.
    - manyatoms 4mo ago
      Feels like the title of a blog post someone will write
      - socksy 4mo ago
        Ah, like this one? https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/posts/2026-02-11-gatekeeping-in-open-source-the-scott-shambaugh-story.html https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post...
        Geezus_42 4mo ago
        If he did so much verification to prove it's right, why not just write it in the first place?
    - dormento 4mo ago
      > Engineer does not understand what they wrote. """""wrote"""""
mysterydip 4mo ago
What I don’t understand is what value is the person adding to this equation? Put another way, what’s the difference between them feeding the wall of text to the LLM, and you feeding the wall of text to the LLM, bypassing them in the process entirely?
- Jimmc414 4mo ago
  The role of the person in the equation is to take personal responsibility for the proposed change and review the changes prior to PR submission. You can't put AI on a PIP. It's acceptable to use AI as a coding assistant in 2026, but if a human is not reviewing what they submit and taking responsibility, their value is on par with a ChatGPT subscription.
- therealdrag0 4mo ago
  Peer review, in this case, “did you use AI to review your change and address its feedback”.
loeg 4mo ago
It helps in that it offloads the code review burden you'd otherwise be doing.
Larrikin 4mo ago
This is the point where you decide. It used to be low stakes and easy to care about the job you did for other people. Do you want to put the same effort into your job when nobody else does, or should you reserve your thoughts and just feed it back into the LLM? The LLMs are being advertised as output increasers but companies so far are using them as excuses to fire people instead of creating previously unbelievable things. It might be better to feed your coworkers output back in and use your thoughts to start the company you thought you never had time for.

> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.

Jensson 4mo ago

It will help if your wall of text cost less tokens than theirs, they will run out before you do if you have the same company quota per person.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
Telemakhos 4mo ago
I'm not sure what the right vocabulary would be to describe this, but this sounds more like the calculations behind nuclear war than a healthy collegiality or cooperative work relationship. This sets up a competition to determine a loser based on resource scarcity, not a way to achieve mutual goals to advance the organization's goals.
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago
  “Token Standoff.” The most efficient token consumer wins. This mutually assured time efficiency destruction is driven by management support of aggressive use of AI in an attempt to, in some combination, increase productive and constrain labor costs. AI isn’t making developers more productive – it’s making them busier - https://leaddev.com/ai/ai-isnt-making-developers-more-productive-its-making-them-busier https://leaddev.com/ai/ai-isnt-making-developers-more-produc... - June 11th, 2026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
  - fallous 4mo ago
    Mutually Assured Distraction.
  - dormento 4mo ago
    Caveman consume fewest token win office token war.
- corndoge 4mo ago
  You are thinking of "game theory" and it's what happens when your coworkers don't give a shit. And all it takes is one, both because they can degrade product quality faster than you can gate it or fix it and because the performance assessment techniques are about 3 years behind the state of LLMs and if they play, you have to also or you'll get shit on from such a height you won't even know what hit you. And once you start playing the game, then one day - it doesn't take long - you wake up and ask yourself if this is how you want to spend 8 hours of your life monday through friday. I think a lot of us are saying no but now need to figure out where our money is going to come from. I don't have the answers.
- witx 4mo ago
  When someone submits PRs fulky made by Clade any "cooperative work" is out the door
- dormento 4mo ago
  In a previous job, we had this saying "killing penguins" we used when referring to throwing more computing resources (more GNU/Linux instances) than necessary at a problem. In today's landscape of indiscriminate AI spending, I bet we could repurpose the term to mean "actually negatively impacting the arctic biodiversity". We are all throwing penguins at each other.
mattas 4mo ago
Also, make sure your wall of text prompts Claude to be extra verbose to really burn through that quota of theirs.
- bigiain 4mo ago
  Now I'm wondering how hard it'd be to zipbomb their context window? (And _now_ I'm wondering how hard it'd be to forkbomb their agentic workflow?)
politician 4mo ago
Try to automate the adversarial PR review-rebuttal loop "for productivity", so the back-and-forth between the AIs can run over night.
smrq 4mo ago
More like they will climb even higher on the lighting-dollars-on-fire leaderboard.

rvz 4mo ago

As a last resort, do the code-review with a live pair programming session. If they can't explain their own code then it is by default a bad pull request. At the end of the day, everyone's time is being wasted on tokens and on the increasing cognitive complexity of AI generated code.

xgulfie 4mo ago
So if they say "idk Claude did it", what would you write in the PR review box?
- Geezus_42 4mo ago
  REJECTED: Engineer does not understand what they wrote.
  - manyatoms 4mo ago
    Feels like the title of a blog post someone will write
    - socksy 4mo ago
      Ah, like this one? https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/posts/2026-02-11-gatekeeping-in-open-source-the-scott-shambaugh-story.html https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post...
      - Geezus_42 4mo ago
        If he did so much verification to prove it's right, why not just write it in the first place?
  - dormento 4mo ago
    > Engineer does not understand what they wrote. """""wrote"""""

mysterydip 4mo ago

What I don’t understand is what value is the person adding to this equation? Put another way, what’s the difference between them feeding the wall of text to the LLM, and you feeding the wall of text to the LLM, bypassing them in the process entirely?

Jimmc414 4mo ago
The role of the person in the equation is to take personal responsibility for the proposed change and review the changes prior to PR submission. You can't put AI on a PIP. It's acceptable to use AI as a coding assistant in 2026, but if a human is not reviewing what they submit and taking responsibility, their value is on par with a ChatGPT subscription.
therealdrag0 4mo ago
Peer review, in this case, “did you use AI to review your change and address its feedback”.

loeg 4mo ago

It helps in that it offloads the code review burden you'd otherwise be doing.

Larrikin 4mo ago

This is the point where you decide. It used to be low stakes and easy to care about the job you did for other people. Do you want to put the same effort into your job when nobody else does, or should you reserve your thoughts and just feed it back into the LLM? The LLMs are being advertised as output increasers but companies so far are using them as excuses to fire people instead of creating previously unbelievable things. It might be better to feed your coworkers output back in and use your thoughts to start the company you thought you never had time for.