Rendered at 08:24:05 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
zknill 38 minutes ago [-]
I read the first two paragraphs and the post presumably criticising folks for using AI is so clearly written by AI. It's got all the tell tail claude-isms in it.
Analogies about 'students and exams' that don't quite fit. The sentences ending in artificially punchy short phrases. The 'correction' and dash-as-reveal in "they can't answer it - no one can".
It's not good, or a compelling read, and I think it's lazy not to have swept through and fixed these things.
brador 10 minutes ago [-]
Still cost more than you paid for it eh.
26 years of startups and no one has made a way to pay $0.01 for an article.
mydreamof 2 hours ago [-]
IMO it depends on the company. If everyone in the company has to provide a lot of PRS etc. you have to stop care about the quality and just get the paycheck. The CEO decided not you. (Of course not when the product may charm ppl etc.)
newsomix9xl 7 hours ago [-]
I always use AI to understand big diffs.
And you can always reject a PR, bro with "I don't understand it to approve it. Maybe make it smaller or documents it better?" Etc
I've had code approvers who gave me tons of crap, even over smaller edits. You too can be that kind of reviewer!
rags2riches 59 minutes ago [-]
My favorite reviewers are those that say "I'm not sure I see the whole picture, can you walk me through this?"
nasretdinov 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah that's quite odd that people somehow now think you can't reject a PR because you can't understand it -- but initially that was one of the reasons to have code review in the first place.
DarmokTanagra 2 hours ago [-]
Do it enough and you become the problem.
I ran into this at my previous company and ended up getting scolded for being a bottleneck when I was just sending back AI slop code.
bigstrat2003 50 minutes ago [-]
It is genuinely awful to work with people who do this. I lose all respect for such people immediately because what are you even providing to the picture in that case?
jdw64 4 hours ago [-]
Personally, one thing I like about Claude is that before, specifications kept changing through verbal explanations. Now, with Claude, everything is communicated in writing, so there's no room for shifting blame.
Does this kind of difference vary depending on the engineering organization?
Analogies about 'students and exams' that don't quite fit. The sentences ending in artificially punchy short phrases. The 'correction' and dash-as-reveal in "they can't answer it - no one can".
It's not good, or a compelling read, and I think it's lazy not to have swept through and fixed these things.
26 years of startups and no one has made a way to pay $0.01 for an article.
And you can always reject a PR, bro with "I don't understand it to approve it. Maybe make it smaller or documents it better?" Etc
I've had code approvers who gave me tons of crap, even over smaller edits. You too can be that kind of reviewer!
I ran into this at my previous company and ended up getting scolded for being a bottleneck when I was just sending back AI slop code.
Does this kind of difference vary depending on the engineering organization?