In the age of AI, PR reviews at work only serve these purposes:

• A PR makes me vaguely aware that something exists. Like, I now know that there’s a component over here that probably does something with this other component over there. Maybe.
  
• I can “gauge the risk”: Is this something that I can simply throw away once it breaks? If not, I’ll have to bite the bullet and start a more detailed discussion about what the flying fuck your 8000 new lines of code actually do. And then you’ll pull the “but I don’t have time for this discussion”-card and we merge anyway.
  
• Shift the blame from author to reviewer: “It passed review! The builds were green!”
  
• I don’t need pills anymore to raise my low blood pressure.
  

It’s so disheartening to see everyone vomit out bullshit. “You can use AI responsibly and actually make the code better”, my ass. Nobody does that. Not a single soul. No human. Ever. None. Nobody.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de The vast majority, yes. However, I know it’s hard to believe, I have seen black sheep that actually improved the code base. Sometimes. Much more often, it’s not the case and I’m far from really understanding the merge request that I’m supposed to review.

One really looses the feeling for the software quickly. Those who think this is a bad thing are in the minority, unsurprisingly.