Discussion
Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...
tylerchilds: On the one hand, agreedOn the other hand, I haven’t and I believe many of us, have never paid node any money so it feels weird to dictate their approach.
cpursley: If they allow AI in Node it just might do a full rewrite into Rust, Go or Elixir ;)
mtndew4brkfst: Well, survivorship bias means that Elixir is loudly populated by AI maximalists now. Just go look at the last several years worth of US/EU Elixirconf talks schedules, it's maybe a third of each cohort and included in keynote slots.
cj: 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?
chjj: That means all AI code would simply be rejected. This saves time.
spoiler: 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... Before there ever was an LLM in sight. So again... What's the argument here? AI can produce more code, so like more possibility for fuck up? Well, don't vibe code with "approve everything" like what are we even talking about? It's not the tool it's the users, and as with any tool theres going to be misuse, especially new and emerging ones lol
chjj: 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.
spoiler: 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 different priorities when reviewing PRs, and it's not like humans don't have lapses in judgement either (I'm not trying to anthropomorphise AI, but you know what I mean).My stance is same about writing code. I honestly don't mind if the code was written `ed` on a linux-powered toaster from 2005 with 32x32 screen, or if they wrote it using Claude Code 9000.At the end of the day, the person who's submitting the code (or signing off a review) is responsible for their actions.So in a round-about way, to answer your question: I think AI as part of the review is fine. As impressive as their output can be sometimes be, it can be both impressively good and impressively bad. So no, only relying on AI for review is not enough.
