A developer stopped reviewing every line of AI-generated code and instead trusts test outcomes to catch problems. They now use AI to draft pull requests, architecture docs, and tickets, then refine them, trading perfect code for speed and getting more done.
Last year I had a rule I would review every line of code that the AI wrote. I've abandoned that rule because I can write so much code so quickly and, you know, there's a higher level of like, are the tests doing the right thing and are they passing? And that's more the kind of heuristic that I'm looking at as I'm generating code now. It's sort of like, I don't feel like my code quality is as high as it was before, but I can write a whole lot more and I can usually get it to the quality if I invest enough time. There's kind of like a trade-off, you know, it's a little bit like our first conversation today. And then the writing any kind of public communication for PR, PR descriptions, ADRs, you know, I think we do a lot of that in general. Like our whole linear ticket backlog is like, you know, written by AI. And for me, like when I write a ticket or a project, I might redraft it like a dozen times to make sure that I like the way that it sounds, but I don't want to actually write it myself. So I feel like that's leveraging the tools and figuring out like what my taste profiles are and stuff like that. I can be more prolific that way personally.
