Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Jimmc414 | on: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort
Fight fire with fire. Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. If there are excessive defects, ask them in standup if they actually reviewed the PR themselves before sending it. If there aren’t maybe they are on to something. I think like in law, the human submitting the work is responsible for its quality, not the AI.
LambdaComplex | parent | next
> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them.

This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.

Larrikin | root | parent | next
This is the point where you decide. It used to be low stakes and easy to care about the job you did for other people.

Do you want to put the same effort into your job when nobody else does, or should you reserve your thoughts and just feed it back into the LLM?

The LLMs are being advertised as output increasers but companies so far are using them as excuses to fire people instead of creating previously unbelievable things. It might be better to feed your coworkers output back in and use your thoughts to start the company you thought you never had time for.

Jensson | root | parent | next
It will help if your wall of text cost less tokens than theirs, they will run out before you do if you have the same company quota per person.
loading story #48499115
loading story #48499828
loading story #48500492
loading story #48498798
loading story #48500084
mysterydip | root | parent | next
What I don’t understand is what value is the person adding to this equation? Put another way, what’s the difference between them feeding the wall of text to the LLM, and you feeding the wall of text to the LLM, bypassing them in the process entirely?
Jimmc414 | root | parent | next
The role of the person in the equation is to take personal responsibility for the proposed change and review the changes prior to PR submission. You can't put AI on a PIP. It's acceptable to use AI as a coding assistant in 2026, but if a human is not reviewing what they submit and taking responsibility, their value is on par with a ChatGPT subscription.
therealdrag0 | root | parent
Peer review, in this case, “did you use AI to review your change and address its feedback”.
loeg | root | parent | next
It helps in that it offloads the code review burden you'd otherwise be doing.
rvz | root | parent
As a last resort, do the code-review with a live pair programming session.

If they can't explain their own code then it is by default a bad pull request.

At the end of the day, everyone's time is being wasted on tokens and on the increasing cognitive complexity of AI generated code.

loading story #48499042
denismi | parent | next
> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them.

Not necessary. Use Haiku.

The response doesn't need to be good, it just needs to be substantial. Presumably the goal here is basically DoS of the problematic colleague through token limits.

miroljub | root | parent
Use DeepSeek or MiMo. You get best bang for the buck on your response.
emodendroket | parent
I mean frankly this should just be part of the standard process. By the time any person is looking at it there's no reason it should not have gone through an AI review.