Hacker News Reader

Comment by jareds | Hacker News Reader

Is this really something to be proud of? I make heavy use of AI, but for anything that is eventually going to production there's still a human reviewer. Based on this I assume Anthropic is shipping code with no human review? Is the future of our industry going to be oneshotting prompts with out manual code review and then having AI fix the bugs found in production buy customers? I'm not trying to be a Curmudgeon, but am I missing something?

View on HN

They review based on the intent of the change not jz blindly.. I think it's mentioned in the article where the job of a developer is to provide high level design decisions and saying no to claude so that it doesn't over engineer solutions.. As the demand for good, but not perfect, software is the bottleneck for anthropic and access to better internal models, I feel that's good enough for their workflow as they've started repeatedly that this is just suitable only for them and they want to share their knowledge like a good software company does.. you talk as though code reviews were not a joke in lots of companies where only specific teams/companies does detailed reviews.. many teams/companies jz blindly approve based on tests passing or just do a high level overview check before merging..

I must have been lucky in my career then, in my experience code review was much more then a five minute check followed by approval.

If your customers accept it, why not? It's much cheaper and testing in production is not really new.

If AI can improve/speed up writing code, why shouldn't it improve/speed up code review?

You can probably still find the leaked code online. It’s not exactly a bastion of software engineering. Plenty of folks have reviewed it deeply.

Where do you draw the line, and where does someone take final responsibility? I don't have an issue with allowing AI to do everything with limited to no human verification for hobby projects. I have an issue with allowing AI to write and ship medical device software with no human review. What's the middle ground?

You still take the full responsibility, I don't think leveraging AI reviews removes any layer of responsibility. The challenge is building the feedback loop (or the agent that builds the feedback loop) to make the review process actually catch what it needs to catch.

I think the line is wherever you feel comfortable with pushing the changes yourself. You feel like adequate testing had been done, basing it on previous testing periods or how successful AI runs have been.

Whether you or AI wrote the code, you decide when it's safe enough to put your name on it. Like it's always been!

If AI does something good, you take responsibility. If it does something bad - "the agent messed up". /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com