On 01/06/2026 17:39, Dan Eble wrote:
Yes, and not just "Is it more work?" but "What is the most appropriate
response?"
If we see "0%", we approach it as a traditional review and probe a
little if that starts feeling wrong.
If we see "57%", then the LLM probably wrote the description too, but
there's still a lot of the author's very own in there.
If we see "100%", then we might feel freer to speak bluntly about its
faults, and our initial response might well focus on using the tool more
effectively, e.g., where to find more context and better examples.
Note also, that (again from what I've picked up, not personal
experience) you need to review AI code *completely*differently* from
"human intelligence" code.
AI makes mistakes, humans make mistakes, and they are very different in
style and substance. If you think the code has been written by HI, you
won't be looking for typical AI errors, and vice versa.
Cheers,
Wol
