Now I get PRs entirely written by Claude from my VP that include things like full plaintext secret keys, or reimplement an API that exists, just shittier.
“Claude wrote this in an hour, why is review taking so long”
Uhh because I can’t figure out the diplomatic way to say this is shit and you need to stop without creating an incident, and I don’t want to spend half my day reviewing crap.
Or spending hours explaining in excruciating detail all the reasons why it’s shit and what they should have done instead, make sure to throw all the heavy handed certification standards and strict audit requirements and mind numbing bike shedding naming standards back at them.
Yeah also noticing similar bullshit. People send me exact steps on what to do written by ChatGPT that understands exactly nothing about the context and is therefore often wrong or a half truth at best.
Another client has pushed a single commit to a messy project that added 70k lines and a load of new features. The project is now unmaintainable.
Instructions are sloppy, code can be sloppy, but what I find is: when they review code changes they find real stuff. Not all the real stuff, but more real stuff than human reviewers typically find. A code review doesn’t need to be perfect, not even 100% correct, it just needs to show you stuff that you look at and think “damn, good to catch this now instead of in a field problem report a year from now…”
This is too real.
Now I get PRs entirely written by Claude from my VP that include things like full plaintext secret keys, or reimplement an API that exists, just shittier.
“Claude wrote this in an hour, why is review taking so long”
Uhh because I can’t figure out the diplomatic way to say this is shit and you need to stop without creating an incident, and I don’t want to spend half my day reviewing crap.
Have you tried asking them a bunch of technical questions they don’t know the answer to, until they give up?
Or spending hours explaining in excruciating detail all the reasons why it’s shit and what they should have done instead, make sure to throw all the heavy handed certification standards and strict audit requirements and mind numbing bike shedding naming standards back at them.
Yeah also noticing similar bullshit. People send me exact steps on what to do written by ChatGPT that understands exactly nothing about the context and is therefore often wrong or a half truth at best.
Another client has pushed a single commit to a messy project that added 70k lines and a load of new features. The project is now unmaintainable.
I’m just glad people will write off my terrible code as AI.
Instructions are sloppy, code can be sloppy, but what I find is: when they review code changes they find real stuff. Not all the real stuff, but more real stuff than human reviewers typically find. A code review doesn’t need to be perfect, not even 100% correct, it just needs to show you stuff that you look at and think “damn, good to catch this now instead of in a field problem report a year from now…”
Are you guys hiring freshers by any chance ?
Is that the new name for “engineers ready to un-slop the code”?
We need some freshers in here to do skin jobs
Tyrell corp designed skin jobs for the Nexus-6 series, like Pris.
I thought “engineers ready to un-slop the code” were “forward deployed engineers” supplied by the AI companies…