Jordan, I also agree with everything you said here. Nice email. I’d support that proposal
On Tue, Sep 29, 2026, at 4:57 PM, Jane H wrote: > I'd support detailed and explicit policies, like Benedict's, Rust's, or > Caleb's, at least they can actually help the problem of AI assisted code > increasing reviewers' burden, though they might introduce other problems. > > Blake, why I think your 3 point simple rules won't work as you wish: people > have very different understandings in what's considered responsible enough or > comprehensive enough understanding. > > Everyone who has brought AI-coded PRs for me to review, new contributors or > committers, who costs around 4x time from me to review their PRs compared to > human-written ones (already more time than implementing on my own), believes > that they are fully responsible for their code and fully understand their > code. Every one of them believes so. > > I tried reminding them that they have to be fully responsible for the > verification of their code. Didn't help in my own experience. (I don't blame > them. We are all figuring out how to use this new tool. And I voluntarily > pick up the tasks of reviewing those PRs. Not their fault. But that's why we > need explicit guidance/policies.) > > I've already met people who believe one of the following is considered > responsible enough: > - Read every line of code and think it makes sense. > - Pass other AI's code reviews > - Pass all existing tests and AI-coded new unit tests and integration tests > > But I think none of them is enough. Therefore, when someone says they are > fully responsible for/fully understanding their code, it doesn't really > reduce my reviewer's load. Those detailed and explicit policies like > Benedict's or Rust's, are largely just defining what's considered responsible > enough. So they will help.
