If you get a 1600 line PR you just close it and ask them to break it up into reviewable chunks. If your workplace has an issue with that, quit. This was true before AI and will be true after AI.
Or just have AI do it for you /s
AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
21–30 of 75 posts
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#22I have no idea what AI changes about this scenario. It's the same scenario as when Mike did this with 1600 lines of his own code ten years ago; it just happens more often, since Mike comes up with 1600 lines of code in a day instead of in a sprint. > I don’t blame Mike, I blame the system that forced him to do this. Bending over backwards not to be the meanie is pointless. You're trying to stop him because the system…
> I have no idea what AI changes
> Mike comes up with 1600 lines of code in a day instead of in a sprint
It seems like you do have an idea of at least one thing that AI changes.
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#23> Then, I’d get a ping from his manager asking on why am I blocking the review. If you are in a culture like this, you may as well just ship slop. Management wants to break stuff, that is on them.
> Management wants to break stuff, that is on them. This implies that managers will do both of the following in response to the aforementioned breakage: 1. Understand that their own managerial policies are the root cause. 2. Not use you as a scapegoat. And yet, if you had managers that were mentally and emotionally capable enough to do both of the above, you wouldn't be in this position to begin with.
That happens a lot, but rarely have I seen the reviewer get blamed. The guy who shipped it gets blamed.
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#24> What was your thought process using AI? > Share your prompts! Share your process! It helps me understand your rationale. why? does it matter? do you ask the same questions for people that don't use AI? I don't like using AI for code because I don't like the code it generates and having to go over and over until I like it, but I don't care how people write code. I review the code that's on the PR and if there's I do…
The prompt is the ground truth that reveals the assumptions and understandings of the person who generated the code.
It makes a lot more sense to review and workshop that into a better prompt than to refactor the derived code when there are foundational problems with the prompt.
Also, we do do this for human-generated code. It's just a far more tedious process of detective work since you often have to go the opposite direction and derive someone's understanding from the code. Especially for low effort PRs.
Ideally every PR would come with an intro that sells the PR and explains the high level approach. That way you can review the code with someone's objectives in mind, and you know when deviations from the objective are incidental bugs rather than misunderstandings.
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#25> What was your thought process using AI? > Share your prompts! Share your process! It helps me understand your rationale. why? does it matter? do you ask the same questions for people that don't use AI? I don't like using AI for code because I don't like the code it generates and having to go over and over until I like it, but I don't care how people write code. I review the code that's on the PR and if there's I do…
Yes of course you should ask the same thing of other non AI PRs. Figuring out the why and the thought process behind behavior is one of the most important parts of communication especially when you don’t know people as well
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#26I have no idea what AI changes about this scenario. It's the same scenario as when Mike did this with 1600 lines of his own code ten years ago; it just happens more often, since Mike comes up with 1600 lines of code in a day instead of in a sprint. > I don’t blame Mike, I blame the system that forced him to do this. Bending over backwards not to be the meanie is pointless. You're trying to stop him because the system…
> I have no idea what AI changes about this scenario. It's the same scenario as when Mike did this with 1600 lines of his own code ten years ago; it just happens more often, since Mike comes up with 1600 lines of code in a day instead of in a sprint.
So now instead of reviewing 1600 lines of bad code every 2 weeks, you must review 1600 lines of bad code every day (while being told 1600 lines of bad code every day is an improvement because just how much more bad code he's "efficiently" producing! Scale and volume is the change.
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#27While I agree with the sentiment of the post, I’ve also came to a conclusion that it’s not worth to fight against the system. If you can’t quit your job, then just do what everyone else is doing: use AI to write and review code, and make sure everyone is happy (especially the management).
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#28> What was your thought process using AI? > Share your prompts! Share your process! It helps me understand your rationale. why? does it matter? do you ask the same questions for people that don't use AI? I don't like using AI for code because I don't like the code it generates and having to go over and over until I like it, but I don't care how people write code. I review the code that's on the PR and if there's I do…
> why? does it matter? do you ask the same questions for people that don't use AI?
…yes? If someone dumps a PR on me without any rationale I definitely want to understand their thought process about how they landed on this solution!
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#29Pointless blog post about made up situations that never happened. 1. Companies that push and value slop velocity do not have all these bureaucratic merge policies. They change them or relax them, and a manager would just accept it without needing to ping the author. 2. If the author was on the high paladin horse of valuing the craft he would not be working in such a place. Or he would be half assing slop too while co…
Things like SOC II effectively require merge control. That doesn't mean the organization really values it, but for compliance purposes, the approval process needs to be there and is applied by someone up on high.
Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility
#30This does seem to align decently well with, for example, the policy the LLVM project recently adopted https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html , which allows for AI but requires a human in the loop that understands the code and allows for fast closure of "extractive" PRs that are mainly a timesink for reviewers where the author doesn't seem to be quite sure what's going on.