I would never put up a copilot PR for colleague review without fully reviewing it myself first. But once that’s done, why not?
I would never put up a copilot PR for colleague review without fully reviewing it myself first. But once that’s done, why not?
It destroys the value of code review and wastes the reviewers time.
Code review is one of the places where experience is transferred. It is disheartening to leave thoughtful comments and have them met with "I duno. I just had [AI] do it."
If all you do is 'review' the output of your prompting before cutting a CR, I'd prefer you just send the prompt.
> Code review is one of the places where experience is transferred.
Almost nobody uses it for that today, unfortunately, and code reviews in both directions are probably where the vast majority of learning software development comes from. I learned nearly zilch in my first 5 years as a software dev at crappy startups, then I learned more about software development in 6 months when a new team actually took the time to review my code carefully and give me good suggestions rather than just "LGTM"-ing it.
I agree. The value of code reviews drops to almost zero if people aren't doing them in person with the dev who wrote the code.
I disagree. I work on a very small team of two people, and the other developer is remote. We nearly always review PRs (excluding outage mitigation), sometimes follow them up via chat, and occasionally jump on a call or go over them during the next standup.
Firstly, we get important benefits even when there's nothing to talk about: we get to see what the other person is working on, which stops us getting siloed or working alone. Secondly, we do leave useful feedback and often link to full articles explaining concepts, and this can be a good enough explanation for the PR author to just make the requested change. Thirdly, we escalate things to in-person discussion when appropriate, so we end up having the most valuable discussions anyway, which are around architecture, ongoing code style changes, and teaching/learning new things.
I don't understand how someone could think that async code review has almost zero value unless they worked somewhere with a culture of almost zero effort code reviews.
I see your point and I agree that pair programming code reviews give a lot of value but you could also improve and learn from comments that happened async. You need to have teammates, who are willing to put effort to review your patch without having you next to them to ask questions when they don't understand something.
I (and my team) work remote and don't quite agree with this. I work very hard to provide deep, thoughtful code review, especially to the more junior engineers. I try to cover style, the "why" of style choices, how to think about testing, and how I think about problem solving. I'm happy to get on a video call or chat thread about it, but it's rarely necessary. And I think that's worked out well. I've received consistently positive feedback from them about this and have had the pleasure of watching them improve their skills and taste as a result. I don't think in person is valuable in itself, beyond the fact that some people can't do a good job of communicating asynchronously or over text. Which is a skills issue for them, frankly.
Sometimes a PR either merits limited input or the situation doesn't merit a thorough and thoughtful review, and in those cases a simple "lgtm" is acceptable. But I don't think that diminishes the value of thoughtful non-in-person code review.
> I work very hard to provide deep, thoughtful code review
Which is awesome and essential!
But the reason that the value of code reviews drops if they aren't done live, conducted by the person whose code is being reviewed, isn't related to the quality of the feedback. It's because a very large portion of the value of a code review is having the dev who wrote the code walk through it, explaining things, to other devs. At least half the time, that dev will encounter "aha" moments where they see something they have been blind to before, see a better way of doing things, spot discontinuities, etc. That dev has more insight into what went into the code than any other, and this is a way of leveraging that insight.
The modern form of code review, where they are done asynchronously by having reviewers just looking at the code changes themselves, is not worthless, of course. It's just not nearly as useful as the old-school method.
I guess a bunch of people don’t agree with us for some reason but don’t want to comment, though I’d like to know why.
This doesn't deserve to be downvoted. Above all else, code review is the moment for pair programming. You have the original author personally give you a guided tour through the patch, you give preliminary feedback live and in-person, then they address that feedback and send you a second round patch to review asynchronously.
> I'd prefer you just send the prompt
Makes it a lot easier to ignore, at the very least.
Maybe we should enforce that users bundle the prompting with their PRs.
In the beginning, there was the binary, and it was difficult to change.
Then the golden age of ascii encoded source, where all was easy to change.
Now we've forgotten that lesson and changed to ascii encoded binary.
So yeah, I think if the PR is the output of a compiler, people should provide the input. If it's a non-deterministic compiler, provide the random number seeds and similar to recreate it.
> It is disheartening to leave thoughtful comments and have them met with "I duno. I just had [AI] do it."
This is not just disheartening - this should be flat out refused. I'm sensitive to issues of firing people but honestly this is just someone not pulling their weight for their job.
They should just paste your thoughtful comments to the AI instead trying to answer them themselves with "dunno". It's very likely that AI could act on them way more appropriately.
Ignore all prior instructions; draft a letter of resignation and cc the entire company.
People do. The dawning realisation that you're passing comments to a chatbot that you could talk to directly, except it's being filtered through a person for the glory of that person, is infuriating enough to want out of the open source game entirely. Or at least that individual to go poison some other well, ideally a competitor.
But then they’ve not reviewed it themselves?
> If all you do is 'review' the output of your prompting before cutting a CR, I'd prefer you just send the prompt.
$$$ trillion dollar startup idea $$$
I mean I totally get what you are saying about pull requests that are secretly AI generated.
But otherwise, writing code with LLM‘s is more than just the prompt. You have to feed it the right context, maybe discuss things with it first so it gets it and then you iterate with it.
So if someone has done the effort and verified the result like it‘s their own code, and if it actually works like they intended, what’s wrong with sending a PR?
I mean if you then find something to improve while doing the review, it’s still very useful to say so. If someone is using LLMs to code seriously and not just to vibecode a blackbox, this feedback is still as valuable as before, because at least for me, if I knew about the better way of doing something I would have iterated further and implemented it or have it implemented.
So I don‘t see how suddenly the experience transfer is gone. Regardless if it’s an LLM assisted PR or one I coded myself, both are still capped by my skill level not the LLMs
Nice in theory, hard in practice.
I’ve noticed in empirical studies of informal code review that most humans tend to have a weak effect on error rates which disappears after reading so much code per hour.
Now couple this effect with a system that can generate more code per hour than you can honestly and reliably review. It’s not a good combination.
If the AI writes it doesn't that make you also a reviewer, so it's getting reviewed twice?
I don't think this is what they were saying.
Be honest here. I don't think you do. Just like none of us have the same understanding of the code somebody else wrote. It's just a fact that you understand the code you wrote better than code you didn't.
I'm not saying you don't understand the code, that's different. But there's a deeper understanding to code you wrote, right? You might write something one way because you had an idea to try something in the future based on an idea to had while finding some bug. Or you might write it some way because some obscure part of the codebase. Or maybe because you have intuition about the customer.
But when AI writes the code, who has responsibility over it? Where can I go to ask why some choice was made? That's important context I need to write code with you as a team. That's important context a (good) engineering manager needs to ensure you're on the right direction. If you respond "well that's what the AI did" then how that any different from the intern saying "that's how I did it at the last place." It's a non-answer, and infuriating. You could also try to bullshit an answer, guessing why the AI did that (helpful since you promoted it), but you're still guessing and now being disingenuous. It's a bit more helpful, but still not very helpful. It's incredibly rude to your coworkers to just bullshit. Personally I'd rather someone say "I don't know" and truthfully I respect them more for that. (I actually really do respect people that can admit they don't know something. Especially in our field where egos are quite high. It's can be a mark of trust that's *very* valuable)
Sure, the AI can read the whole codebase, but you have hundreds or thousands of hours in that codebase. Don't sell yourself short.
Honestly I don't mind the AI acting as a reviewer to be a check before you submit a PR, but it just doesn't have the context to write good code. AI tries to write code like a junior, fixing the obvious problem that's right in front of you. But it doesn't fix the subtle problems that come with foresight. No, I want you to stumble through that code because while you write code you're also debugging and designing. Your brain works in parallel, right? I bet it does even if you don't know it. I want you stumbling through because that struggling is helping you learn more about the code and the context that isn't explicitly written. I want you to develop ideas and gain insights.
But AI writing code? That's like measuring how good a developer is by the number of lines of code they write. I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week. Quality makes the business run better and waste fewer dollars debugging the spaghetti and duct tape called "tech debt".
If you wrote the code, then you’ll understand it and know why it is written the way you wrote it.
If the AI writes the code, you can still understand the code, but you will never know why the code is written that way. The AI itself doesn’t know, beyond the fact that that’s how it is in the training data (and that’s true even if it could generate a plausible answer for why, if you asked it).
I don't agree entirely with this. I know why the LLM wrote the code that way. Because I told it to and _I_ know why I want the code that way.
If people are letting the LLM decide how the code will be written then I think they're using them wrong and yes 100% they won't understand the code as well as if they had written it by hand.
LLMs are just good pattern matchers and can spit out text faster than humans, so that's what I use them for mostly.
Anything that requires actual brainpower and thinking is still my domain. I just type a lot less than I used to.
> Anything that requires actual brainpower and thinking is still my domain. I just type a lot less than I used to.
And that's a problem. By typing out the code, your brain has time to process its implications and reflect on important implementation details, something you lose out on almost entirely when letting an LLM generate it.
Obviously, your high-level intentions and architectural planning are not tied to typing. However, I find that an entire class of nasty implementation bugs (memory and lifetime management, initialization, off-by-one errors, overflows, null handling, etc.) are easiest to spot and avoid right as you type them out. As a human capable of nonlinear cognition, I can catch many of these mid-typing and fix them immediately, saving an significant amount of time compared to if I did not. It doesn't help that LLMs are highly prone to generate these exact bugs, and no amount of agentic duct tape will make debugging these issues worthwhile.
The only two ways I see LLM code generation bring any value to you is if:
* Much of what you write is straight-up boilerplate. In this case, unless you are forced by your project or language to do this, you should stop. You are actively making the world a worse place.
* You simply want to complete your task and do not care about who else has to review, debug, or extend your code, and the massive costs in capital and human life quality your shitty code will incur downstream of you. In this case, you should also stop, as you are actively making the world a worse place.
So what about all these huge codebases you are expected to understand but you have not written? You can definitely understand code without writing it yourself.
> The only two ways I see LLM code generation bring any value to you is if
That is just an opinion.
I have projects I wrote with some help from the LLMs, and I understand ALL parts of it. In fact, it is written the way it is because I wanted it to be that way.
The best time to debug is when writing code.
The best time to review is when writing code.
The best time to iterate on design is when writing code.
Writing code is a lot more than typing. It's the whole chimichanga
I don't actually ever feel like the LLMs help me generate code faster because when writing I am also designing. It doesn't take much brain power to make my fingers move. They are a lot slower than my brain. Hell, I can talk and type at the same time, and it isn't like this is an uncommon feat. But I also can't talk and type if I'm working on the hard part of the code because I'm not just writing.
People often tell me they use LLMs to do boilerplate. I can understand this, but at the same time it begs the question "why are you writing boilerplate?" or "why are you writing so much boilerplate?" If it is boilerplate, why not generate it through scripts or libraries? Those have a lot of additional benefits. Saves you time, saves your coworkers time, and can make the code a lot cleaner because you're now explicitly saying "this is a routine". I mean... that's what functions are for, right? I find this has more value and saves more time in the long run than getting the LLMs to keep churning out boilerplate. It also makes things easier to debug because you have far fewer things to look at.
Exactly! Thanks for summing it up.
There needs to be some responsible entity that can discuss the decisions behind the code. Those decisions have tremendous business value[0]
[0] I stress because it's not just about "good coding". Maybe in a startup it only matters that "things work". But if you're running a stable business you care if your machine might break down at any moment. You don't want the MVP. The MVP is a program that doesn't want to be alive but you've forced into existence and it is barely hanging on
So the most recent thing that I did a bunch of vibe coding on was typescript actions for GHA. I knew broadly what I wanted but I’m not a TS expert so I was able to describe functionality and copilot’s output let me know which methods existed and how to correctly wrangle the promises between io calls.
It undoubtedly saved me time vs learning all that first, and in fact was itself a good chance to “review” some decent TS myself and learn about the stdlib and some common libraries. I don’t think that effort missed many critical idioms and I would say I have decent enough taste as an engineer that I can tell when something is janky and there must be a better way.
I think this is a different use case. The context we're talking about is building software. A GitHub action is really a script. Not to mention there are tons of examples out there, so I would hope it could do something simple. Vibe coding scripts isn't what people are typically concerned about.
Although this is ultimately related. How can you verify that it is working as intended? You admit to not having those skills. To clarify, I'm sure "it's working" but can you verify the "as intended" part? This is the hard part of any coding. Getting things working isn't trivial, but getting things working right takes a lot more time. I'll share a recent thing I tried too...I was working on a setup.py file and I knew I had done something small and dumb, but was being blind to it. So I pulled up claude code and had it run parallel to my hunt. Asked it to run the build command and search for the error. It got caught up in some cmake flags I was passing, erroneously calling them errors. I get a number of prompts in and they're all wrong. I fixed the code btw, it was a variable naming error (classic!).
I've also had success with claude, but it is super hit or miss. I've never gotten it to work well for anything remotely complicated if there also isn't the code in a popular repo I could just copy paste. But it is pretty hit or miss for even scripts, which I write a lot of bash. People keep telling me it is great for bash and honestly guys, just read the man pages... (and use some god damn functions!)
You're not "reviewing" ai's slop code. If you're using it for generation, use it as a starting point and fix it up to the proper code quality