Why Your AI Code Bias Is Making You a Worse Reviewer

I review code based on what's there. When I've reviewed ai-generated code, I always find issues. Usually subtle bugs that would just suck to track down. Sometimes glaring bugs that would break things immediately. Not once have I seen aigen code and thought highly of it. When I don't know it's aigen, I just assume that the coder is incompetent. Discovering that it's aigen, I'm colored completely unsurprised.

No, I don't want your ai slopcode. But if it was actually good, conformed to our standards, etc, I wouldn't even know. That's the crux - aigen code _is_ shit and that's why I'm biased against it.

> I’m trying to defend the engineer who uses AI responsibly, and iteratively, to craft their code. Who understands the patterns that have been generated, and has reviewed their own code first.

Of course they are. Because that is what they do, and this is a marketing blog that supports their business.

Not that I disagree, overall. It is just always worth being aware of the bias of an author.

i dont have bias to ai code, i review ai code, sometimes it looks fine, sometimes it looks like shit

- ai code is always shit