Do human developers check for 200 items when they do code review? How long would that take? It's quite clear that AI code review could be better even with some error.
What's easy for human to review is also easy for AI (small code base, small PRs). What's hard for AI is also hard for human, if not more. But the time cost is so different that it's almost a nobrainer to choose AI to code and review, especially considering most software out there is not so critical :)
Humans pattern match against thousands upon thousands of criteria subconsciously.
AI is a different intelligence - a 200 point list shoved in its face all at once doesn’t overwhelm it. That’s only 5-10k tokens!
Bear in mind though, because I added all the items on the list I’ve seen the reasons they’re there & act as a backstop against it missing things. There’s always got to be a quality bar, it’s part of being a professional and signing your name on your work.
> Do human developers check for 200 items when they do code review? How long would that take? It's quite clear that AI code review could be better even with some error.
We (humans) don't do 200 point inspection, but we also don't review every code change in a spherical vacuum without prior knowledge of the project. However, we do check a lot of things.
> What's hard for AI is also hard for human, if not more.
That's just plain wrong. AI straight up suffers with counting things, and I'm not just talking about counting 'r' in strawberry. Some things are easier for AI some are easier for human.
Do human developers check for 200 items when they do code review? How long would that take? It's quite clear that AI code review could be better even with some error.
What's easy for human to review is also easy for AI (small code base, small PRs). What's hard for AI is also hard for human, if not more. But the time cost is so different that it's almost a nobrainer to choose AI to code and review, especially considering most software out there is not so critical :)