upvote

points

by Jimmc41418 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby LambdaComplex18 hours ago|
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.

reply
upvoteby Larrikin15 hours ago|
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.

reply
upvoteby Jensson17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
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.
reply
upvoteby Telemakhos17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I'm not sure what the right vocabulary would be to describe this, but this sounds more like the calculations behind nuclear war than a healthy collegiality or cooperative work relationship. This sets up a competition to determine a loser based on resource scarcity, not a way to achieve mutual goals to advance the organization's goals.
reply
upvoteby corndoge15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You are thinking of "game theory" and it's what happens when your coworkers don't give a shit. And all it takes is one, both because they can degrade product quality faster than you can gate it or fix it and because the performance assessment techniques are about 3 years behind the state of LLMs and if they play, you have to also or you'll get shit on from such a height you won't even know what hit you.

And once you start playing the game, then one day - it doesn't take long - you wake up and ask yourself if this is how you want to spend 8 hours of your life monday through friday. I think a lot of us are saying no but now need to figure out where our money is going to come from. I don't have the answers.

reply
upvoteby dormento5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
In a previous job, we had this saying "killing penguins" we used when referring to throwing more computing resources (more GNU/Linux instances) than necessary at a problem. In today's landscape of indiscriminate AI spending, I bet we could repurpose the term to mean "actually negatively impacting the arctic biodiversity".

We are all throwing penguins at each other.

reply
upvoteby witx13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
When someone submits PRs fulky made by Clade any "cooperative work" is out the door
reply
upvoteby toomuchtodo16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
“Token Standoff.” The most efficient token consumer wins. This mutually assured time efficiency destruction is driven by management support of aggressive use of AI in an attempt to, in some combination, increase productive and constrain labor costs.

AI isn’t making developers more productive – it’s making them busier - https://leaddev.com/ai/ai-isnt-making-developers-more-produc... - June 11th, 2026

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

reply
upvoteby fallous15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Mutually Assured Distraction.
reply
upvoteby dormento5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Caveman consume fewest token win office token war.
reply
upvoteby mattas15 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Also, make sure your wall of text prompts Claude to be extra verbose to really burn through that quota of theirs.
reply
upvoteby bigiain14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Now I'm wondering how hard it'd be to zipbomb their context window?

(And _now_ I'm wondering how hard it'd be to forkbomb their agentic workflow?)

reply
upvoteby smrq13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
More like they will climb even higher on the lighting-dollars-on-fire leaderboard.
reply
upvoteby 17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby politician14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Try to automate the adversarial PR review-rebuttal loop "for productivity", so the back-and-forth between the AIs can run over night.
reply
upvoteby mysterydip17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
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?
reply
upvoteby Jimmc41416 hours ago|
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.
reply
upvoteby therealdrag015 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Peer review, in this case, “did you use AI to review your change and address its feedback”.
reply
upvoteby loeg17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It helps in that it offloads the code review burden you'd otherwise be doing.
reply
upvoteby rvz17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby xgulfie17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So if they say "idk Claude did it", what would you write in the PR review box?
reply
upvoteby Geezus_4217 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
REJECTED: Engineer does not understand what they wrote.
reply
upvoteby dormento5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Engineer does not understand what they wrote.

"""""wrote"""""

reply
upvoteby manyatoms14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Feels like the title of a blog post someone will write
reply
upvoteby maccard11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The same as if they said it was copied from stack overflow, or if it’s wrong; “I think there’s a problem here, it’s XYZ”. If your peer ignores you and you were wrong, it was their call to make. If you were right - take it to them or the manager depending on how many times it’s happened.
reply
upvoteby CursedSilicon17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
A teammate that can't write (or at least, can't explain) "their own code"

Actively drags down the morale and productivity of their team (because everyone is getting flooded with AI slop PR's)

AND costs far too much money relative to everyone else doing actual work? (token usage)

By god they sound like management material

reply
upvoteby matkoniecz14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
"Author of this pull request has not yet reviewed code and does not understand it. This PR was submitted prematurely, probably by accident.

Please, check whether you accidentally submitted other unreviewed code - and close such PRs for now and reopen once reviewed."

reply
upvoteby maccard11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Don’t ever write this in a professional environment. It’s childish ant achieves nothing other than pissing off the person it’s targeted at and probably the manager who now has to deal with a shitty behaviour complaint.
reply
upvoteby denismi15 hours ago|
prev|
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.

reply
upvoteby miroljub13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Use DeepSeek or MiMo. You get best bang for the buck on your response.
reply
upvoteby emodendroket16 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
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.
reply