.... even it will be explicitly forbidden to merge the code WITHOUT A REVIEW which was done by AI ....
On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 12:01 AM Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
