How do the reviewers feel about this? Hopefully it won't result in them being overwhelmed with PRs. There used to be a kind of "natural limit" to error rates in our code given how much we could produce at once and our risk tolerance for approving changes. Given empirical studies on informal code review which demonstrate how ineffective it is at preventing errors... it seems like we're gearing up to aim a fire-hose of code at people who are ill-prepared to review code at these new volumes.

How long until people get exhausted with the new volume of code review and start "trusting" the LLMs more without sufficient review, I wonder?

I don't envy Linus in his position... hopefully this approach will work out well for the team.