Hear, hear!

I've been proclaiming this exact point as part of my "Resurrecting the Dead" talk.

Code review of GenAI PRs is no longer about training the next generation of potential maintainers, making it just a time sink, sucking the joy out of being a maintainer.

Well done AI companies.
OSS can't survive without community, so destroying the communities is a great step towards destroying open source (in favour of the AI closed garden where tokens costs 100x what they do now)....

Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net

Code reviewing was never the most interesting thing to do. But it had one important element. That, if done right, it was knowledge exchange between the reviewer and the coder. That can be quite motivating. Helping a fellow coder to become better. Reviewing "AI" written code does NOT come with that potential reward. The machine doesn't learn the way a human does. This turns code review into a menial, fruitless task that leads to frustration instead. That's my observation and opinion.

1/2

Replying to @jrf_nl@phpc.social

@jrf_nl @elazar The fact that AI can’t learn is one of the worst parts about using it. There are certain things that are so prevalent in the training data that any amount of “memory” files stressing the importance of doing things a certain way will not overcome the tendency to follow what it was trained on.

One of those things is using commas instead of concatenation operators in PHP echo statements.

Replying to @ramsey@phpc.social

@ramsey As it happens, I came across this article today, and think it makes a similar and relevant point, albeit in a round-about and likely unintentional kind of way.

"Retrieval is the wrong tool for finding code an agent can fetch itself, and the right tool for remembering things an agent has no way to rediscover from the repo as it stands today."

A limited and often lacking ability to curate and navigate memories heavily curtails the usefulness of models.

qodo.ai/blog/we-built-a-state-

@jrf_nl

QodoWe built a state-of-the-art RAG system for code review. In Qodo 2.4, we took most of it out.Read about We built a state-of-the-art RAG system for code review. In Qodo 2.4, we took most of it out. in our blog.

Replying to @ramsey@phpc.social

@elazar @jrf_nl It also has to be part of an enforced hook because, if you leave it up to the AI to remember to always run them before committing, there will be many times they’ll just “forget” and commit straight away. When called out, it’s an “Oh, yeah! I was supposed to do that!” moment.

They cannot be relied on to be deterministic. They’re still just advanced auto-complete.

Replying to @ramsey@phpc.social

@ramsey Better solutions do admittedly depend heavily on either the level of granularity and flexibility afforded by the relevant harness natively, or that of any hook system it provides.

For my part, I've written a plugin for Claude Code that's used internally where I work and uses hooks to formalize and automate selective aspects of managing tool access in a more contextually granular way than Claude Code natively affords in its stock UX.

@jrf_nl

Jul 5, 2026, 15:20 UTCen