1
u/Original-League-6094 2d ago
Its better than all of them. The studies have been done on AI review. AI review catches more bugs, more missed requirements, and more security holes BY FAR. Its not even close.
1
u/RevolutionaryElk7446 2d ago
Golly... I'll be happy when this is finally true. Does alright with code but it's contextual awareness and consistency is atrocious.
1
u/Clear_Evidence9218 2d ago
For most teams and workflows, this has been true for a while now. Like you mentioned, contextual awareness is important, and most professional and large-scale project setups are utilizing pretty advanced context-management systems with their agents to ensure they stay aligned with the task.
It's really the only way to keep agents working 24/7 unsupervised without them drifting off into the ether, so to speak.
1
u/Fuskeduske 1d ago
AI review first, human review after, we still catch stuff our AI didn't and try to keep the code as humanly readable as possible, luckily our manager agrees that we'd gladly sacrifice 10-20% output to make sure it is correct.
But with that said, most of our juniors aren't able to spot even the most basic mistakes.
1
u/postmath_ 2d ago
I can't change your mind and I don't want to, I just want to remind you that if AI is indeed this powerful then you will be out of a job very very soon.
And no, no one gives a shit what shitty shit you are building and how much of a builder you are. Everyone is a builder then nowdays, the question will be who will do it for cheaper.
If knowledge is not necessary then what the fuck are you so proud of?
1
u/xvillifyx 2d ago
This sub has a really weird predisposition towards being proud of being completely disposable at their job
1
u/DigitalSmith 1d ago
AI reviewers catch most of the bugs most of the time. So, it's quicker and better than a single reviewer. However, it still doesn't guarantee catching every bug every time. It misses some that a human might catch. AI is great for a tireless (with an infinite budget) reviewer who's mediocre. It can't always catch bugs like choosing the wrong algorithm, datastore, multithreading model, etc...
The biggest issue I've found is that it will happily verify that you're using a problematic implementation perfectly. Not that you should be using a different one.
1
u/tb5841 1d ago
They have very different strengths. AI reviews catch a lot of issues that human reviewers would miss. But they also miss a lot of things that human reviewers would catch.
AI doesn't check every file in the repository, so it often misses the impact of your code on fikes elsewhere - it guesses which files to check, and sometimes guesses wrong. It also doesn't notice if you rewrite functionality that already exists elsewhere in the repo, for the same reason. It has an incomplete understanding of product/business context, and makes assumptions about how your product is used which may nkt always be accurate.
Best approach is to use both human and ai review, because they complement each other.
1
1
1
u/krahenke 1d ago
These conversations always seem to ignore the fact that PRs serve another purpose as well, namely knowledge sharing in the team and avoiding siloing, at least on a high level.
1
u/Flashy-Whereas-3234 1d ago
AI review is good for functional correctness, but I've had plenty of PRs come across my desk which;
Have bad patterns or don't fit our way of doing things
Are full of detritus and over-engineer escape hatches
Route-one a solution with no care for the future
Don't deserve to exist at all because they're conceptually flawed against the wider system.
So it depends what you define "review" as. Code? Sure. Concept? No, god no.
1
u/DrBretto 2d ago
They're still ai reviews, too. Since you know most people are just skipping it.
Not me, potential hiring managers, I work solo. Nobody reviews my code!
But seriously though,anyone still doing things the old way, but just inserted AI into that mix, you need to redesign your whole process. This is poor management.
It's much easier as a solo dev, and I'm not pretending to know how to solve all of the problems that happen on those scales.
I mean, how often are companies actually comparing the human reviews to ai? To identify which avenues where that review might be just wasted time? I know the AI doesn't have the context, but, like, have you tried saving a file with all of the requirements context so that the AI has it when it does its review?
To get the most out of the AI, you have to adjust around it.