I am finding this, professionally, not so dramatic - but mostly because the industries in which I've consistently shipped code at scale involve review as a first principle, as in no un-tested, un-reviewed code gets shipped, because: safety critical/realtime requirements and certification specs, say so.

And having AI code to review is no different than any other code that ever was to review, so the review tooling is - as it necessitates - also benefited by lugubrious application of .. more AI. But: all AI is human reviewed.

So it's not a big impact. We just don't ship code that isn't 100% human reviewed, If that's insurmountable: you're doing it wrong. Use AI to make code readable again.

And then, also, put AI back in its box. Don't give devs 100% full-time API access to subscriptions: give them actual hardware to use, to go 100% local.

Local AI is, thus, the best AI, folks. Don't use more than you can run locally, is a great way to keep AI code properly maintainable.

The industry will prove this, itself, sooner or later: If you can't put your AI in its box for safe-keeping, you're doing it wrong, anyway... and should've already learned this practice as a habit, decades ago, vis a vis future-proof tooling... (See also: not logging everything you do with an AI? Big fail.)

Sure, the absolutely intoxicating addiction of Big Metal AI™ is going to put a lot of consumers in a deep, deep pit of Neo-Illiteracy - however: 'good' AI code is actually just good code.