31–40 of 43 posts
I have no unique perspective to add other than an obvious question: If the PR is low quality, why not just close/reject it? Does it matter if it's AI assisted or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because PRs with AI need to be reviewed with a lot more scrutiny, simply because AI is good at generating code that looks good, but isn't necessarily correct. So now you're looking at a PR that at face value looks good, but doesn't reflect the author's skill and understanding of the subject. Meaning now you shift more work to the owners of the codebase, as they have to go through those verifications steps.
Just deprioritize it and make the mr openers do more verification
> A 19k lines-of-code Pull Request was opened in January, 2026. Such a PR should be rejected simply because of the shear size of it, regardless of AI use. Seriously, who submits a 19k line PR? Just make many small ones.
How would you go about breaking up this particular set of functionality into smaller PRs, exactly? It's meant to introduce a virtualized file system... the size is dictated by the feature itself. Also, no mention at all regarding the test coverage, or impact if any on existing code paths specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is your opinion, I ask you: are you okay with AI reviewing the PRs as well, or do you prefer a human to do it? Think carefully before responding.
I don't know why you have to qualify your sentence with "think carefully before you respond" it makes it seem like you're setting up some rhetoric trap... But I'll assume it's in good faith? Anyway... I don't mind if a review is AI-assisted. I've always been a fan of the whole "human in the loop" concept in general. Maybe the AI helps them catch something they'd normally miss or gloss over. Everyone tends to have dif…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you have to qualify your sentence with "think carefully before you respond" it makes it seem like you're setting up some rhetoric trap... But I'll assume it's in good faith? Anyway... I don't mind if a review is AI-assisted. I've always been a fan of the whole "human in the loop" concept in general. Maybe the AI helps them catch something they'd normally miss or gloss over. Everyone tends to have dif…
It sounds like what you'd send to an LLM lol. "Think carefully, make no mistakes."
The author of the PR is a long time nodejs contributor & conference speaker. He explicitly claims that `I've reviewed all changes myself.`.
In the end it's a question if you trust him to submit a useful, well-reviewed PR. Doesn't matter if it was created using AI or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That means all AI code would simply be rejected. This saves time.
If AI writes a for loop the same way you would... Does it automatically mean the code is bad because you—or someone you approve of—didn't write it? What is the actual argument being made here? All code has trade offs, does AI make a bad cost/benefit analysis? Hell yeah it does. Do humans make the same mistake? I can tell you for certain they do, because at least half of my career was spent fixing those mistakes... Be…
I have no unique perspective to add other than an obvious question: If the PR is low quality, why not just close/reject it? Does it matter if it's AI assisted or not?
Because PRs with AI need to be reviewed with a lot more scrutiny, simply because AI is good at generating code that looks good, but isn't necessarily correct. So now you're looking at a PR that at face value looks good, but doesn't reflect the author's skill and understanding of the subject. Meaning now you shift more work to the owners of the codebase, as they have to go through those verifications steps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just deprioritize it and make the mr openers do more verification
What sort of verification?
Or some kind of protocol for building those things in the MR so that any new behavior explicitly demonstrates the new states and transitions.
This is hard if the new MR introduces a completely different paradigm outside the mental model of the reviewer and maintainer. Might be better off completely forking the project and running it in parallel aka taking on the maintainer duties if they feel so inclined to completely change things
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because PRs with AI need to be reviewed with a lot more scrutiny, simply because AI is good at generating code that looks good, but isn't necessarily correct. So now you're looking at a PR that at face value looks good, but doesn't reflect the author's skill and understanding of the subject. Meaning now you shift more work to the owners of the codebase, as they have to go through those verifications steps.
This makes 0 sense. It shouldn't matter if AI wrote the PR or a human.