Imo human review is important for context/knowledge sharing even if a machine or tool can mechanically determine the change is reasonable

No worries at all, that's a very fair point and a question we've gotten a lot!

I think our perspective is that: software design has always had a subjective element to it. There's never been a "right" way to design a system, there are always trade offs that have to be made that depend on things like business context etc.

To that extent, most engineers probably still want to be part of that decision making process and not just let agents make all the high level decisions, especially if they're responsible for the code that ultimately gets merged

One thing that comes to mind is that an AI might see the code and say "Yeah, this should compile / no obvious runtime errors", but the AI doesn't have the context to know your teams coding standards (every team has different standards). That said, there are ways to feed that context to the AI, but still risk hallucinations, etc.

I mean, that's likely where it's going.

Most of human review I see of AI code is rubber stamping at this point, the volume is too big for human to keep up. What used to take Developers a few days to do is taking a few hours so PR volume is higher and human reviewing can't keep up. At this point, human review seems like CYA then anything else, "Why yes SOC2 auditor, we review all PRs."

I'm also seeing a lot more outages as well but management is bouncing around all happy about feature velocity they are shipping so :shrug: