In the other thread it seems to me we went over positives only when it comes to usage of AI during reviews. There are also negatives of embracing AI / reviews / prompts. I think we should also look at the other side - how it might affect us negatively. I will put on a "negativist" cap for a while to see also the ugly side of this.
"PR slop" - by enabling this officially, I expect we will see substantial rise in the volume of PRs of very low quality and reviewers would spend time on PRs which are just nonsensical or highly under-developed. An original author might think that any review issues will be addressed by his / her AI again when some issues arise. This also means that we might grow a generation of authors who do not code anymore the classical style and do not actually know too much about how the code works in a broader context which I think might be detrimental in the long run. Risk of a "lazy reviewer" - committer / reviewer, as busy as they are, even it will be explicitly forbidden to merge the code which was done by AI, will just review it by AI and being under a lot of stress, they might merge it anyway. I think this puts more responsibility on committers to be honest. Not saying we are not doing our best already, but my gut feeling is that once it will be officially in the repo then somebody might take some kind of a "mental shortcut" and not review the classical way. I do not trust AI, inherently. It might guide you at best. Sometimes even that is not true. I believe that by introducing these prompts / context files we will make it nonsensical less often. Anyway I think that by introducing this the bar for quality reviews will be even higher because on the other side there will be AI sitting, not a human anymore.
