More code is being written by AI now.
Oddly, reading it is not the tiring part.
The tiring part is this:
“Maybe I should check one more thing.”
And then another thing.
A review can continue forever if nobody gives it permission to end.
At some point, I realized I was asking the wrong question.
I kept asking the AI to find more problems.
But the real problem wasn’t finding things.
It was deciding which findings still deserved attention.
So I started sorting them into three boxes.
The second box is the interesting one.
“Looks fine” is not enough.
If the AI says something is safe to skip, it has to explain what it actually checked: ran the code, counted all references, found a rule in documentation, or proved something from the structure.
And it has to point to path:line
.
That changes the job.
Instead of solving the problem again, I can look at the evidence and ask a much cheaper question:
“Yes, is that actually there?”
Sometimes.
Because there’s a catch.
An AI can also confidently write “structurally impossible” next to a very convincing wrong line number.
A citation is not truth.
It is only a place to look.
And “safe to skip” probably won’t feel safe at first.
I’ll still read that pile.
Probably for a while.
So this won’t save time on Tuesday.
Maybe after three weeks.
But I think that’s the useful part of the idea.
AI code review doesn’t necessarily need to find fewer things. It needs a rule for stopping.
Tomorrow, I’d try only this:
Sort findings into human decision / safe to skip / unverified.
Anything “safe” needs evidence andpath:line
. Otherwise, it isn’t safe yet.
AI is very good at continuing.
Humans are too, unfortunately.
Someone has to say, “Enough.”