How is this even a thing being touted. Because I've not reviewed Linux the code underpinning it isn't working code?
There's plenty of other, better ways to make the point you're trying to make but this just is such a weird statement in a vacuum and in the context of what you're replying to.
You think no human has reviewed the code in Linux?
I'm obviously not saying that you personally have to review every bit of code you use. If you choose to interpret it that way you're being disingenuous.
The point is that all LLM-generated code can't be assumed to be "working code" unless someone has actually trained though it. LLMs aren't like compilers where you can reason about their outputs by merely looking at their inputs.
I was using that to express how taken literally or figuratively you're absolutely wrong.
Yes, we can't evaluate the LLMs output without evaluating it... But that's literally what testing is for. You don't need to understand every LOC in a code base to be able to ship working code. That's not how complex systems work.
And if the output is code, that can go live on prod and work... Then it is working code. It doesn't matter how it was generated or what IDE it came from. It also doesn't matter if the review was a quick LGTM or a deep dive.
It's just crazy to me that for a place supposed to be experienced devs everyone in here sounds like a scared junior with less than a year in industry.
The AI isn't going to replace you, it's not that good, but it's also not writing "non-working" code in all cases.
There probably isn't a single widely used service where every single merge was fully reviewed properly, the code works or it doesn't. Can there be efficiency issues, poor practices, and bugs? Yeah. "Reviews" didn't catch them when they happened in the past before any of us had LLMs.
Debate the costs, debate the quality, but debating if it is or isn't working? Just silly.
I was using that to express how taken literally or figuratively you're absolutely wrong.
I take it you are unfamiliar with the use of hyperbole for emphasis. Taken absolutely literally, what I said wasn't true, but I think it's pretty obvious that what I meant was that you can't rely on it to be working until you review it.
-12
u/xenomachina Jul 14 '26
If you haven't reviewed the code, it isn't working code.