Linux is the name of a computer operating system kernel and a group of systems built on it, like Ubuntu or Mint. Linux is the basic infrastructure of the Internet. It’s important. A report ju…
The Linux kernel gets a ton of PRs constantly. My big issue with LLM code is that it is really good at appearing to be thought out, but actually reverse engineering it can reveal major mistakes.
A good reviewer should still catch them, but it takes longer since the “code smell” is different. Humans will usually make consistent simple mistakes while LLMs will sometimes use advanced patterns to make the same mistake.
The fact that these take longer to review, are usually much longer in general, and are appearing at an incredible pace (1hr to generate, 1 day to review) creates a backlog that becomes unbearable to review.
A lot of open source projects have banned them for this reason, but the ones that do allow them tend to use LLM reviewers to help clear the backlog which is a whole different ouroboros of an issue.
What I hate about the review vs generation disparity is that there’s suddenly pressure on the reviewer (the one gatekeeping poor quality work) to work faster under a greater workload.
If I don’t review it quickly, someone who doesnt give a shit will, and they’ll hit approve on slop and get a gold star for doing it fast. If you make a comment, the contributor suddenly spams 5 commits with loads of changes which need reviewing - all while that same contributor gets to work on (ruin) other shit while you’re stuck with their mess.
In my last job, I could work through a problem with someone to get a good submission, with compromise of course. Since then, I work with someone who swears by AI depsite barely having a grasp of programming and I straight up want to reject half of his PRs. But can I? No, because I’m at the same level as him and get given less respect by management because I’m not churning out slop so I can be free to get invites to other meetings for technical commentary. It’s a pisstake.
I’m very happy that I’m lead/solo dev at my company because I get to just say no. If I don’t want to maintain it it doesn’t get done since everything I do is internal tooling.
Also means that our whole company runs on a Python codebase with a single dependency. It took me 3 years to finally get around to vendoring a fast graphing library in our codebase because I wanted everything to be ours. We’ve had 3 other devs come through and only one of them has actually been able to produce something that got merged in.
Maybe I’m just an insane person, but when all of production relies on our code, I want to know exactly how it works and where everything is.
The Linux kernel gets a ton of PRs constantly. My big issue with LLM code is that it is really good at appearing to be thought out, but actually reverse engineering it can reveal major mistakes.
A good reviewer should still catch them, but it takes longer since the “code smell” is different. Humans will usually make consistent simple mistakes while LLMs will sometimes use advanced patterns to make the same mistake.
The fact that these take longer to review, are usually much longer in general, and are appearing at an incredible pace (1hr to generate, 1 day to review) creates a backlog that becomes unbearable to review.
A lot of open source projects have banned them for this reason, but the ones that do allow them tend to use LLM reviewers to help clear the backlog which is a whole different ouroboros of an issue.
What I hate about the review vs generation disparity is that there’s suddenly pressure on the reviewer (the one gatekeeping poor quality work) to work faster under a greater workload.
If I don’t review it quickly, someone who doesnt give a shit will, and they’ll hit approve on slop and get a gold star for doing it fast. If you make a comment, the contributor suddenly spams 5 commits with loads of changes which need reviewing - all while that same contributor gets to work on (ruin) other shit while you’re stuck with their mess.
In my last job, I could work through a problem with someone to get a good submission, with compromise of course. Since then, I work with someone who swears by AI depsite barely having a grasp of programming and I straight up want to reject half of his PRs. But can I? No, because I’m at the same level as him and get given less respect by management because I’m not churning out slop so I can be free to get invites to other meetings for technical commentary. It’s a pisstake.
I’m very happy that I’m lead/solo dev at my company because I get to just say no. If I don’t want to maintain it it doesn’t get done since everything I do is internal tooling.
Also means that our whole company runs on a Python codebase with a single dependency. It took me 3 years to finally get around to vendoring a fast graphing library in our codebase because I wanted everything to be ours. We’ve had 3 other devs come through and only one of them has actually been able to produce something that got merged in.
Maybe I’m just an insane person, but when all of production relies on our code, I want to know exactly how it works and where everything is.
my dream is to be this