"Everyone must use AI."

...

"No! Not like that!"

Well that's going to make your senior developers quit.

Junior and mid-level engineers will now require more senior engineers to sign off any AI-assisted changes, Treadwell added.

So instead of getting a human to write it and AI peer reviewing it you want the most expensive per hour developers to look at stuff a human didn't write and the other engineers can't explain? Yeah, this is where the efficiency gains disappear.

I read stuff from one of my Jr's all the time and most of it is made with AI. I don't understand most of it and neither does the Dev. He keeps saying how much he's learned from AI but peer programming with him is the pits. I try to say stuff like, "Oops! Looks like we forgot the packages." And then 10 secs of silence later, "So you can go to line 24 and type..."

...

Do the senior engineers NOT sign off on changes to systems that can take down the production servers? Even if we take out the LLM created code, this sounds like a bigger problem

Yes, so now when there's a success, it gets attributed to AI. When there's an outage, that's the fault of humans not reviewing correctly. These senior engineers will get fucked in all scenarios.

What is AI good at? Creating thousands of lines of code that look plausibly correct in seconds.

What are humans bad at? Reviewing changes containing thousands of lines of plausibly correct code.

This is a great way to force senior devs to take the blame for things. But, if they actually want to avoid outages rather than just assign blame to them, they'll need to submit small, efficient changes that the submitter understands and can explain clearly. Wouldn't it be simpler just to say "No AI"?

"Huge rich company responsible for hosting like half of the fucking internet spent the last year pushing code to global-scale production without so much as a review by a senior engineer."

That's how I read that headline.

How in the glorious fuck was this not a thing from the start? In a system this big and this critical all code should be reviewed by cognizant individuals. Anyone who thought an LLM would be perfect and not need code reviews has their heads so far up their asses they can see through their pee hole.

I always saw a code review like a dissertation defense. Why did you choose to implement the requirement in this way? Answers like 'I found a post on Stackoverflow' or 'the AI told me to' would only move the question back one step; why did you choose to accept this answer?
I was a very unpopular reviewer.

The way AI is being pushed onto workers on a global scale has to be the dumbest thing to ever happen in the work space. Executives are getting hysterical over something they don't even try to understand and even governments shower companies in subsidies if they do anything with AI. Of course the only result so far are mass layoffs and exploding costs for energy and hardware. All the while economies are crumbling everywhere because of course they do when mass unemployment sweeps around the globe. And again, governments everywhere are subsiding this crap with tax payer money. What's even worse than all of that is the insane environmental damage all of this causes. But I'll have to cut myself short here because I'm just getting increasingly upset here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: We're funding our own decline in rapid speed. Human stupidity has found a new peak in 2026 and it's not even close. I knew the way AI was advertised was completely overblown years ago but I never anticipated it would get this bad this quickly.

as a sr, I would just keep rejecting them and make AI find "reasons" why.

or hear me out, they can build it themselves so they don’t have to chase hallucinations. as a matter of fact, let’s cut the ai out of the project and leave it to summarizing emails.

Keep taking Ls Amazon!

If my job ends up being reviewing AI code spammed at me by vibe coding juniors all day, I’m joining a nunnery.

Aren't their names already on the commits? Or is the AI given write access to their code repository?

LOL, so they can blame and fire SOMEONE.

They want to move fast and break things but they still want a few meat bags around to blame when things inevitable blow up in their faces.

Couldn't they, I don't know, just go back to people writing the code, and stop using AI to do something it clearly can't handle? Just an idea.

I guess they've invested (thrown) so much money at this thing, they're determined to make it work. Also, I know they've gone into insanely deep debt and if it doesn't work they're going to lose an eye watering amount of money, and perhaps the bubble bursting will be the catalyst to bringing down the entire world economy.

Oh, so yeah, they do have great incentive to make this work, but I don't see it happening. As usual, they fuck up and the rest of us pay the bill. None of the billionaires will suffer any more than loss of face over this. Even if they've broken laws, all they ever get is a small fine and a slap on the back, "Better luck, next time, ol' boy!"

AI is an assistant, not a replacement. It amazes me that Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and all these "tech leader" companies are going to make the same tech fuckup multiple times.

xD

Guess that all-in-on-AI attitude was not such a bold and brilliant idea after all.