3 ms·
It's a different of degree, not kind. Anybody who has reviewed pull requests can tell you that sooner or later you approve a PR after many rounds of changes be
by phrotoma 13d ago
It's a different of degree, not kind.
Anybody who has reviewed pull requests can tell you that sooner or later you approve a PR after many rounds of changes because it's finally "good enough".
Fighting with a robot to just do the damned thing is less fraught because they don't get offended by critiques but it takes more round trips to get them pointed in the direction you want.
- thw_9a83c 12d agoFighting with a robot requires also a different kind of attention. When you're reviewing the human code, you can quite easily guess an overall seniority and competency level of the author and then you can adjust your level of attention to every detail. E.g. if the solution requires an understanding of some core idea, ones the human understands this core idea, you can be quite sure that it is consistently implemented everywhere. With AI, 90% of the PR could be expertly implemented but then, for no obvious reason, 10% could be low-quality surprise. I've never seen such unbalanced output from human programmers.
- zahlman 12d agoIf 90% of it was fine, maybe it would be better to just fix the 10% yourself rather than "fighting with a robot" to try to get an automated fix.
- thw_9a83c 11d agoYes, but those 10% of a problematic code is not easy to find without a very detailed study of the whole PR. And since most of the code looks (and usually is) very well-written, the human brain somehow doesn't expect to find those low-quality or sub-optimal parts in such code. That's why I wrote that reviewing the AI code requires different kind of attention.