Use AI for reviewing code especially when the diff is huge

A spicy debate exploded after one developer argued that if a code change is massive, humans should stop pretending they can inspect every line and let artificial intelligence do the grunt work. The pitch was simple: your real value as a reviewer isn’t catching tiny mistakes, it’s bringing the human-only context — like knowing a tool is about to be retired, remembering a decision from last week’s meeting, or spotting a bigger design problem the bot wouldn’t know about. In other words: let the machine read the mountain, while you bring the gossip from the office.

The community, however, was not ready to clap. One of the loudest reactions basically asked whether the title was satire, saying the article accidentally made the case for not trusting an AI reviewer at all. Another commenter went full scorched earth: if you’re just unleashing a chatbot on someone’s work, are you reviewing it — or just forwarding robot mail? That line hit hard, and you can almost hear the collective wince.

Then came the practical dunking. Critics pointed out the obvious puzzle: if the whole point is to provide important context, how do you know what context matters unless you read the giant change first? Ouch. Others were more measured, saying AI can reduce busywork but not replace review entirely, especially when bots still produce weirdly overprotective code, reinvent common tools, and generally act like an intern with infinite confidence. The result? Less "future of work," more comment-section cage match.