We're going to see more of this before we see, hopefully, substantially less of it.

What I'm seeing now in industry -- and I think this autofix issue is a precise example of it -- is a natural evolution of the "LGTM!" review that's so prevalent in software development and similar disciplines.

For years, the dramatic majority of "code review" was a quick glance followed by "Looks good to me." Sure, critical workflows have more scrutiny. Sure, not everyone fell victim to this trap. Sure, there are many exceptions. But it's a meme for a reason: most people weren't really reviewing code assigned to them. They were effectively rubber-stamping most things.

So now, in the age of AI, those same people are (sometimes still) expected to be responsible for what their automated developer friend Claude is doing. It's absolutely unreasonable to think that most people are giving the PR more than a glance, and in many organizations they're explicitly trying to remove humans from the loop.

One day, AI development and code review will be so good that mistakes like this will be extraordinarily rare. For the near-future, though, I anticipate we'll see more of this before we see less.

Yeah I agree and I think code forges as well as AI harnesses are kinda the killer apps of this (relatively short) era.

I think once we figure out how to tighten the loop of user feedback, expert analysis, automatic/static verification and AI generation then technology is going to make another leap.

lol keep dreaming bro, mistakes like these were "extroardinarily rare" before LLM companies reared their thieving hands.

“There is absolutely no way Bitcoin will ever trade for more than $200.. Impossible!” he said.