I get asked this rhetorical question a lot, in various forms:

Sure, datacenters might use a lot of energy, but you don’t have to use a hosted frontier model to do software development. What if I just run a local open-weights model to do some coding, with an open-source coding agent? Video games also use my GPU. Is local model development any worse than playing a video game?

So I want to write down my comprehensive answer to this: Yes, using an LLM to write some code is worse than playing a video game, for a few reasons.

Video Games Are Interactive, LLMs Are Batch Jobs

Video games use compute to respond to human input. You are using your GPU while you are looking at a screen, displaying an image. When you are done playing, you shut off the game, and your computer goes back to idle. It’s much less energy. By contrast, agentic loops with evals (the only kind of “AI” that is meaningfully any good at coding) are running hot, for days. To use the most recent example of such a thing, a very rough first sketch of an implementation of a Windows graphics API backend to help port a paint program to other platforms, it took 3 weeks of Claude time, “day and night”. Do you play a lot of video games for 500 hours to make it past the tutorial level, while also using other computers for other things, as well as the rest of your carbon footprint?

Video Games Need Development, LLMs Need Training

Video games use compute to respond to human input during development, too. Your game has to be made, but your LLM has to be trained. LLMs use a historically extreme amount of power, probably using more than the entire Internet, but it’s kind of hard to say. Still, it seems a reasonable estimate to within several orders of magnitude that even over a multi-year project with hundreds of developers, the power used to develop an individual video game is nowhere close to training even a small LLM.

This is true even for local models. OpenAI has openly claimed that DeepSeek “stole its intellectual property”, and I have heard grumblings that none of the open-weights generalist models could realistically exist without the massive lift that the frontier labs are doing with their training, in various other ways too. Secrecy throughout the industry makes this kind of impossible to understand rigorously, but it seems fair to say that you are partially culpable for all that famously energy-intensive frontier lab training if you’re using a local model.

And They Keep Needing Training

You also can’t dismiss this as a sunk cost, because in order to stay current with industry developments, models need to be updated with new information from the rest of the world, which means that you need to keep training them. Beyond the energy for your own use, if you want a real-life agentic workflow that actually does useful stuff, practically speaking you would still need to update your local models over and over again, at least once every few months, which means you would be incentivizing continued energy consumption by whoever was doing that training for you, including the energy cost of scraping.

Let’s Be Real Here, You Aren’t Actually Using A Local Model

This question is a hypothetical thought experiment. Despite synthetic benchmarks that keep showing there isn’t much difference between open weight and frontier models, nobody’s actually using local models for much of anything beyond sharing those talking points. Depending on which benchmark you’re looking at, maybe it’s good enough or maybe it’s worse.

As an inveterate AI hater, all these systems seem pretty bad to me, but it seems that people who find them useful tend to subjectively believe the frontier models are worth the premium, and that’s what they’re actually using. Once you have accepted that it is OK to use LLMs for coding at all, it seems like a very quick slippery slope on down to “we’ll go ahead and use the frontier models for now anyway, but we could be ethically better in the future by switching to an open weights one, that option is always available”.

There’s A Reason We Have Data Centers

Devolving power usage to local LLMs might be good to make users responsible for their costs and decrease the impacts to communities that are physically next to huge concentrations of power utilization, not to mention generation. However, there’s a reason that it makes sense for the providers to build these giant facilities: economies of scale reduce total power consumption, they don’t increase it. If you do all the same stuff with a local model that they have to do in hosted environments, it will probably take more power, even though you will be incentivized to do different stuff. This incentive to “do different stuff” is why although local models can hypothetically hold their own against the frontier labs for some tasks, when people or businesses take their inference costs in-house they often find that it’s too painful and move back to hosted LLMs.

There Are Problems Other Than Power

These are subjects for a different post, but you have to consider a lot of other externalities: AI psychosis, de-skilling, comprehension debt, cultivating a dependency, introducing security defects, limiting your design space based on what LLMs can understand, context rot, wasting time on invalid solutions, introducing unpredictability into your workflows. You still have to consider the total cost benefit ratio.

To Sum Up

Local LLMs might alleviate some of the harms from using the hosted frontier providers. There are fewer privacy concerns, you can measure your power utilization and be more directly responsible for it, you can build interfaces with affordances that are less oriented towards addiction and dependency than the major frontier labs’ harnesses.

But they’re not automatically “the same as playing a video game” just because they can use the same GPU.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my patrons who are supporting my writing on this blog. If you like what you’ve read here and you’d like to read more of it, or you’d like to support my various open-source endeavors, you can support my work as a sponsor!

As I have discussed in previous posts, “AIs” can make mistakes. In fact, they do make mistakes, and their mistake-making patterns are such that where and how they will make mistakes is both uncertain and constantly changing.

Thus, in any scenario where you want to attempt to make “productive” use of “AI”, you must have a system in place for checking every result. Not checking some results; checking every result. If each result might have a consequence for you (and if it didn’t have a consequence, why bother automating it?) and you cannot predict in advance which kinds of results will need verification, then verification is always required.

The verification often ends up being just as expensive as doing the work in the first place, which means that if you want your usage of “AI” to be personally profitable, you have to find someone else to externalize the cost of verification onto. This person becomes your adversary, and, if you are successful, your “AI’s” victim.

The Ladder-Climber And Their Reverse-Centaur Rungs

One way that this constellation of facts can straightforwardly assemble themselves into a dystopian nightmare is the phenomenon, described by Cory Doctorow, of the reverse centaur. This is when your employer non-consensually turns you into the verification system. The “AI” does the fun part of initially performing the work, and then you do the boring part where you check if the robot is right and clean up its messes, even if everyone already knows that it would, in aggregate, be cheaper for you to do the work in the first place.

Reverse centaurs can be made from any automation, not only “AI” automation. I think that there is a reason that this term happens to have emerged in the “age of AI”, though, and not with earlier automation technologies (even those which were considerably more viscerally horrific). That reason is: the wrongness of “AI” output is not merely a technical feature that must be compensated for, it is a generalized externality.

As I mentioned above, if you are responsible for the entirety of the work, both extruding the “AI” output and checking it, it’s usually cheaper to have humans do the entirety of the work to begin with. When humans do the writing directly, we can check as we go, and thus verification doesn’t need to be as comprehensive.

When “AI” coding advocates say “code review is the bottleneck”, what they are observing is that the LLM is still rolling the dice for each PR, and a human is still necessary to verify that each of those rolls is a winner. But calling this process “code review” is a bit of a misnomer; it’s not really “code review” in the traditional sense, it’s human understanding.

Before the advent of “AI”, the human understanding was implicit in the process of writing the code in the first place¹, and the code review was a way of diffusing and extending that understanding. Now that the code can be authored with no initial understanding taking place, that cost has not gone away, it has moved.

Human understanding was always the bottleneck.

However, this is taking a collaborative view of a software project, where satisfying the needs and solving the problems of your customers are the goals. We can see that “AI” is a bad tool to satisfy those goals, because all it’s doing is converting the first half of the work, that of understanding the code as you write it, to understanding the agent’s output as you read it.

What if, instead, we were to take the view that every software company is a Hobbesian nightmare, red in tooth and claw? In this view, the only goal of a software project is for the individual developers to make their promo cycles and get their bonuses. Given that there is only a certain amount of money to go around, this is a zero-sum game where each programmer wants to look more productive than their colleagues.

Pretty much every organization finds it easy to reward “productivity” as expressed by lines of code emitted, but the benefits of doing thorough and thoughtful design, analysis, and code review very difficult to reward. In this world, an LLM is an invaluable tool for the sociopathic ladder-climber, particularly if your legacy organization is still structuring their workflows as if the person prompting the bot is “writing” the code, and then they get to foist off the act of “reviewing” the code onto someone else.

Here, the prompter effectively externalizes the cost of the LLM’s failures but internalizes any benefits. The prompter will vibe-code a big feature, so large that the assigned reviewer can’t possibly comprehend it all effectively. When this happens, the reviewer will, eventually, be pressured to approve it, even if they can try to spot a few problems along the way. The reviewer has their own work to get back to, after all, the obligation to review the prompter’s (read: the bot’s) code is a drain on their time that they are not going to get rewarded for.

If this feature is a big success, the prompter gets a promotion. If it causes a big issue, well, the reviewer must not have been careful enough.

This is why LLMs are “good for coding”, and also why their biggest promoters keep having outages.

The Generative Gish Galloper

Coding is the biggest “success story” of this type of adversarial communication, but it is by far not the only instance of such a thing. LLMs create a new form of leverage that can turn Brandolini’s law from a linear advantage into an exponential one. If you are engaged in a political debate where you want to overwhelm the other side in nonsense, an LLM can generate bullshit faster than it is physically possible for a human being to type, let alone respond thoughtfully. There is an asymmetry to the utility of this weapon as well: only one side of the political spectrum wants to flood the zone and destroy trust in institutions and the concept of truth. There’s a good reason that the fascists love it.

Straightforward Spam and Fraud

This is kind of obvious, but LLMs can generate lightly-customized, plausible-looking text much more quickly than any human being. This facilitates their use in fraud, spam, and scams. In a spamming or fraudulent interaction, once again, the costs are externalized onto the victim: the recipient of a spam message has to do all the work of “checking” the LLM’s output. Spammers already expect very low hit rates from boilerplate, and if the LLM can increase those percentages from 1% to 5% the technology will pay for itself; they don’t need anything like reliable accuracy.

Customer “Support”

If you have any kind of commercial relationship with a company, I probably don’t even need to mention this: customer “support” bots are a misery. Everybody knows it at this point. But customer support is usually conceptualized by businesses as an adversarial interaction, because it is a cost center. They maintain internal metrics on time-to-resolution and try to optimize them. Implicitly, this creates a dynamic where the goal of the customer service agent’s job is not to solve your problem, but to emit noise that will cause you to think your problem is resolved, or to give up, as fast as possible. Unsurprisingly, LLMs can emit this noise faster than humans can, getting those customers off the phone. But those customers will remember those interactions, and the story outside the TTR metrics is horrible.

Similarly to the situation in software development, LLMs can look very good on paper for customer support, but mostly what they are doing is illuminating the problems with the industry’s existing metrics, by turning “winning the metrics battle against the customer” into a more obvious and immediate defeat for the company’s long term reputation.

“Education”

In 2026 it is sadly a fact of life that students cheat all the time using “AI”, and that this cheating is very successful, in that the teachers find it very hard to detect.

LLMs are great for cheating on schoolwork because the student is externalizing the work of the checking onto the teachers, who are often starting at a disadvantage to begin with, at least in the US.

My view is that this is happening because of a divergence in the way that students vs. teachers (or, more accurately, “the broader educational system”) view grading.

When a student is asked to write an essay, the teachers see the effort as both intrinsically worthwhile for the student, as well as useful as a pedagogical tool to evaluate and react to the student’s progress. The student, by contrast, sees a stumbling block designed to knock them off the path to success and into a permanent underclass. It is no wonder that the student sees “AI” as useful to their own goals and has no compunction about deploying it.

There is a bitter irony that the ability to understand the inherent value of actually writing the essay on their own is the sort of thing that students can really only learn by writing a bunch of essays. There’s no way that I can think of which makes the benefit legible as long as a shortcut is available.

The net effect here is a downward spiral, where the already-wobbling educational system is sustaining an attack that it doesn’t have the resources to recover from. The individual students’ attacks against their teachers and their schools’ grading systems might appear to momentarily succeed, but they will win the battle and lose the war.

Spamming “For Good”?

Usually when we talk about someone unilaterally choosing to enter into an adversarial relationship, that’s an “attack” and for good reasons we have a negative impression of the attacker. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are some cases where the relationship was already adversarial; just because you’re the attacker doesn’t mean that you are evil.

For example we might imagine use-cases like automatically filing appeals for prior authorizations against health insurance. It’s relatively well-known at this point that the main way for-profit insurers maintain their margins is by denying claims right up to the line of the policies themselves being fraud, so using a spamming tool to fight them might be entirely justifiable² in that case.

Similarly, using an LLM could be justified in a fight against a company refusing to honor a warranty. One could imagine using an LLM to immediately generate replies and escalations.

However, even in imagined cases like these, the underlying problem is that the insurers and the vendors already have a tremendous amount of structural power, so it is more likely that they will have the advantage in deploying a communications weapon like an LLM, as well as enacting policies to simply ignore any LLM-based communication that you might submit. Worse, if these strategies were to become widespread, they might provide an excuse to reject any communications by feeding them into an unreliable “LLM detector” and issuing an automated “computer says no” even to hand-written correspondence.

It is also worth stressing that these cases are imagined, as compared to the very real coworker-abuse, spam, scam, fraud, and disinformation campaigns being waged in real life today.

Therefore, while legitimate uses might exist, it’s hard to imagine that there’s anywhere they would be genuinely valuable and sustainable. In the best case “AI” will provide a temporary advantage for underdogs that will provoke an arms race which the resource-advantaged adversaries will win in the long run, in the worst case the arms race itself will cement permanent structural change that will make things worse.

“Search” By Stealing

Most of the adversarial utility of “AI” is on the “write” side, since write-amplification is more obviously aggressive than reading. But the “read” side of LLMs — summarization and question-answering — can be a form of attack as well.

To begin with, the act of reading itself is currently enormously destructive, but that’s arguably not a fundamental aspect of this technology. They could set reasonable rate-limits and respect things like robots.txt, as search engines have for decades now. They could also refrain from committing criminal levels of copyright infringement. But, today, using “AI” tools does suborn this sort of out-of-control crawling.

More insidiously, consider the scenario described in this YouTube video. The LTT Bros decided to try Linux again, and in the course of so doing, they had problems. When trying to solve these problems, they were faced with a choice: they could consult Reddit, or they could ask an LLM. Asking an LLM would “gaslight the heck out of” them, but they still found it preferable, because they would at least get an answer without getting yelled at.

Initially this sounds great. But it also means that you want to extract knowledge from a community, while mechanically eliding any values or norms that the community may want to impart as part of offering that knowledge. As someone who spent many years in a community tech support role, this is worrying. Many requests for support are people asking how to do things that will momentarily solve a superficial problem but create a long-term reliability problem or even an immediate security risk, that the question-asker doesn’t want to hear about. Consider the question “I’m tired of entering my password so much, how do I make it so my laptop unlocks automatically”. An obsequious chatbot will helpfully tell you how to do this without pushback.

But, this is also a sort of ethically murky area. The Linux community is somewhat famously, for many years now, a toxic cesspool of general hostility, misogyny, etc. It is certainly a good thing that people can get access to this knowledge without subjecting themselves to abuse. But it also means that the people with the power and the privilege to change the community for the better can just quietly withdraw, rather than fixing the problems. It also means that the positive elements of culture cannot be transmitted, and people will have no opportunity to learn about unknown unknowns.

In this case, the “adversarial” communication is with society. The thing that using an LLM for search lets you do is withdraw from society and avoid forming any personal connections. There are some personal connections which are painful and annoying, and so that can feel like a momentary balm. But the need to make connections in general is, like, the concept of society itself.

Who Am I Hurting?

LLMs are good at adversarial communication. They are so good at it, relative to their other benefits, that they will tend to make communications adversarial if you are not remaining vigilant about the possibility that it might do so. My request to you, dear reader, if you are going to use such tools, is to always ask yourself, “who might I be hurting, if I use an LLM for this?”

If you’re using an “AI”, who is its adversary? If you haven’t given it one yet, who might the “AI” turn into an adversary? Who might you overwhelm with an asymmetric amount of output, or, if you’re receiving information and not sending it, who are you taking that information from without consulting?

Figure out the answers to these questions and conduct yourself accordingly; the answer might be “yourself”.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my patrons who are supporting my writing on this blog. If you like what you’ve read here and you’d like to read more of it, or you’d like to support my various open-source endeavors, you can support my work as a sponsor!

Let’s say you’re writing a Python library.

In this library, you have some collection of state that represents “options” or “configuration” for a bunch of operations. Such a set of options is a bundle of potentially ever-increasing complexity. Thus, you will want it to have an extremely minimal compatibility surface, with a very carefully chosen public interface, that is either small, or perhaps nothing at all. Such an object conveys state and might have some private behavior, but all you want consumers to be able to do is build it in very constrained, specific ways, and then pass it along as a parameter to your own APIs.

By way of example, imagine that you’re wrapping a library that handles shipping physical packages.

There are a zillion ways to do it ship a package. There are different carriers who can ship it for you. There’s air freight, and ground freight, and sea freight. There’s overnight shipping. There’s the option to require a signature. There’s package tracking and certified mail. Suffice it to say, lots of stuff.

If you are starting out to implement such a library, you might need an object called something like ShippingOptions that encapsulates some of this. At the core of your library you might have a function like this:

1
2
3
4
5

async def shipPackage(
        how: ShippingOptions,
        where: Address,
    ) -> ShippingStatus:
    ...

If you are starting out implementing such a library, you know that you’re going to get the initial implementation of ShippingOptions wrong; or, at the very least, if not “wrong”, then “incomplete”. You should not want to commit to an expansive public API with a ton of different attributes until you really understand the problem domain pretty well.

Yet, ShippingOptions is absolutely vital to the rest of your library. You’ll need to construct it and pass it to various methods like estimateShippingCost and shipPackage. So you’re not going to want a ton of complexity and churn as you evolve it to be more complex.

Worse yet, this object has to hold a ton of state. It’s got attributes, maybe even quite complex internal attributes that relate to different shipping services.

Right now, today, you need to add something so you can have “no rush”, “standard” and “expedited” options. You can’t just put off implementing that indefinitely until you can come up with the perfect shape. What to do?

The tool you want here is the opaque data type design pattern. C is lousy with such things (FILE, pthread_*_t, fd_set, etc). A typedef in a header file can easily achieve this.

But in Python, if you expose a dataclass — or any class, really — even if you keep all your fields private, the constructor is still, inherently, public. You can make it raise an exception or something, but your type checker still won’t help your users; it’ll still look like it’s a normal class.

Luckily, Python typing provides a tool for this: typing.NewType.

Let’s review our requirements:

1. We need a type that our client code can use in its type annotations; it needs to be public.
2. They need to be able to consruct it somehow, even if they shouldn’t be able to see its attributes or its internal constructor arguments.
3. To express high-level things (like “ship fast”) that should stay supported as we add more nuanced and complex configurations in the future (like “ship with the fastest possible option provided by the lowest-cost carrier that supports signature verification”).

In order to solve these problems respectively, we will use:

1. a public NewType, which gives us our public name...
2. which wraps a private class with entirely private attributes, to give us an actual data structure, while not exposing the constructor,
3. a set of public constructor functions, which returns our NewType.

When we put that all together, it looks like this:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Literal, NewType

@dataclass
class _RealShipOpts:
    _speed: Literal["fast", "normal", "slow"]

ShippingOptions = NewType("ShippingOptions", _RealShipOpts)

def shipFast() -> ShippingOptions:
    return ShippingOptions(_RealShipOpts("fast"))

def shipNormal() -> ShippingOptions:
    return ShippingOptions(_RealShipOpts("normal"))

def shipSlow() -> ShippingOptions:
    return ShippingOptions(_RealShipOpts("slow"))

As a snapshot in time, this is not all that interesting; we could have just exposed _RealShipOpts as a public class and saved ourselves some time. The fact that this exposes a constructor that takes a string is not a big deal for the present moment. For an initial quick and dirty implementation, we can just do checks like if options._speed == "fast" in our shipping and estimation code.

However, the main thing we are doing here is preserving our flexibility to evolve the related APIs into the future, so let’s see how we might do that. For example, let’s allow the shipping options to contain a concrete and specific carrier and freight method:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

from dataclasses import dataclass
from enum import Enum, auto
from typing import NewType

class Carrier(Enum):
    FedEx = auto()
    USPS = auto()
    DHL = auto()
    UPS = auto()

class Conveyance(Enum):
    air = auto()
    truck = auto()
    train = auto()

@dataclass
class _RealShipOpts:
    _carrier: Carrier
    _freight: Conveyance

ShippingOptions = NewType("ShippingOptions", _RealShipOpts)

def shipFast() -> ShippingOptions:
    return ShippingOptions(_RealShipOpts(Carrier.FedEx, Conveyance.air))

def shipNormal() -> ShippingOptions:
    return ShippingOptions(_RealShipOpts(Carrier.UPS, Conveyance.truck))

def shipSlow() -> ShippingOptions:
    return ShippingOptions(_RealShipOpts(Carrier.USPS, Conveyance.train))

def shippingDetailed(
    carrier: Carrier, conveyance: Conveyance
) -> ShippingOptions:
    return ShippingOptions(_RealShipOpts(carrier, conveyance))

As a NewType, our public ShippingOptions type doesn’t have a constructor. Since _RealShipOpts is private, and all its attributes are private, we can completely remove the old versions.

Anything within our shipping library can still access the private variables on ShippingOptions; as a NewType, it’s the same type as its base at runtime, so it presents minimal¹ overhead.

Clients outside our shipping library can still call all of our public constructors: shipFast, shipNormal, and shipSlow all still work with the same (as far as calling code knows) signature and behavior.

If you need to build and convey some state within your public API, while avoiding breakages associated with compatibility churn, hopefully this technique can help you do that!

Acknowledgments

Thanks for reading, and thank you to my patrons who are supporting my writing on this blog. If you like what you’ve read here and you’d like to read more of it, or you’d like to support my various open-source endeavors, you can support my work as a sponsor.

Humans Are Bad At Perceiving

Humans are not particularly good at catching bugs. For one thing, we get tired easily. There is some science on this, indicating that humans can’t even maintain enough concentration to review more than about 400 lines of code at a time..

We have existing terms of art, in various fields, for the ways in which the human perceptual system fails to register stimuli. Perception fails when humans are distracted, tired, overloaded, or merely improperly engaged.

Each of these has implications for the fundamental limitations of code review as an engineering practice:

• Inattentional Blindness: you won’t be able to reliably find bugs that you’re not looking for.

• Repetition Blindness: you won’t be able to reliably find bugs that you are looking for, if they keep occurring.

• Vigilance Fatigue: you won’t be able to reliably find either kind of bugs, if you have to keep being alert to the presence of bugs all the time.

• and, of course, the distinct but related Alert Fatigue: you won’t even be able to reliably evaluate reports of possible bugs, if there are too many false positives.

Never Send A Human To Do A Machine’s Job

When you need to catch a category of error in your code reliably, you will need a deterministic tool to evaluate — and, thanks to our old friend “alert fatigue” above — ideally, to also remedy that type of error. These tools will relieve the need for a human to make the same repetitive checks over and over. None of them are perfect, but:

• to catch logical errors, use automated tests.
• to catch formatting errors, use autoformatters.
• to catch common mistakes, use linters.
• to catch common security problems, use a security scanner.

Don’t blame reviewers for missing these things.

Code review should not be how you catch bugs.

What Is Code Review For, Then?

Code review is for three things.

First, code review is for catching process failures. If a reviewer has noticed a few bugs of the same type in code review, that’s a sign that that type of bug is probably getting through review more often than it’s getting caught. Which means it’s time to figure out a way to deploy a tool or a test into CI that will reliably prevent that class of error, without requiring reviewers to be vigilant to it any more.

Second — and this is actually its more important purpose — code review is a tool for acculturation. Even if you already have good tools, good processes, and good documentation, new members of the team won’t necessarily know about those things. Code review is an opportunity for older members of the team to introduce newer ones to existing tools, patterns, or areas of responsibility. If you’re building an observer pattern, you might not realize that the codebase you’re working in already has an existing idiom for doing that, so you wouldn’t even think to search for it, but someone else who has worked more with the code might know about it and help you avoid repetition.

You will notice that I carefully avoided saying “junior” or “senior” in that paragraph. Sometimes the newer team member is actually more senior. But also, the acculturation goes both ways. This is the third thing that code review is for: disrupting your team’s culture and avoiding stagnation. If you have new talent, a fresh perspective can also be an extremely valuable tool for building a healthy culture. If you’re new to a team and trying to build something with an observer pattern, and this codebase has no tools for that, but your last job did, and it used one from an open source library, that is a good thing to point out in a review as well. It’s an opportunity to spot areas for improvement to culture, as much as it is to spot areas for improvement to process.

Thus, code review should be as hierarchically flat as possible. If the goal of code review were to spot bugs, it would make sense to reserve the ability to review code to only the most senior, detail-oriented, rigorous engineers in the organization. But most teams already know that that’s a recipe for brittleness, stagnation and bottlenecks. Thus, even though we know that not everyone on the team will be equally good at spotting bugs, it is very common in most teams to allow anyone past some fairly low minimum seniority bar to do reviews, often as low as “everyone on the team who has finished onboarding”.

Oops, Surprise, This Post Is Actually About LLMs Again

Sigh. I’m as disappointed as you are, but there are no two ways about it: LLM code generators are everywhere now, and we need to talk about how to deal with them. Thus, an important corollary of this understanding that code review is a social activity, is that LLMs are not social actors, thus you cannot rely on code review to inspect their output.

My own personal preference would be to eschew their use entirely, but in the spirit of harm reduction, if you’re going to use LLMs to generate code, you need to remember the ways in which LLMs are not like human beings.

When you relate to a human colleague, you will expect that:

1. you can make decisions about what to focus on based on their level of experience and areas of expertise to know what problems to focus on; from a late-career colleague you might be looking for bad habits held over from legacy programming languages; from an earlier-career colleague you might be focused more on logical test-coverage gaps,
2. and, they will learn from repeated interactions so that you can gradually focus less on a specific type of problem once you have seen that they’ve learned how to address it,

With an LLM, by contrast, while errors can certainly be biased a bit by the prompt from the engineer and pre-prompts that might exist in the repository, the types of errors that the LLM will make are somewhat more uniformly distributed across the experience range.

You will still find supposedly extremely sophisticated LLMs making extremely common mistakes, specifically because they are common, and thus appear frequently in the training data.

The LLM also can’t really learn. An intuitive response to this problem is to simply continue adding more and more instructions to its pre-prompt, treating that text file as its “memory”, but that just doesn’t work, and probably never will. The problem — “context rot” is somewhat fundamental to the nature of the technology.

Thus, code-generators must be treated more adversarially than you would a human code review partner. When you notice it making errors, you always have to add tests to a mechanical, deterministic harness that will evaluates the code, because the LLM cannot meaningfully learn from its mistakes outside a very small context window in the way that a human would, so giving it feedback is unhelpful. Asking it to just generate the code again still requires you to review it all again, and as we have previously learned, you, a human, cannot review more than 400 lines at once.

To Sum Up

Code review is a social process, and you should treat it as such. When you’re reviewing code from humans, share knowledge and encouragement as much as you share bugs or unmet technical requirements.

If you must reviewing code from an LLM, strengthen your automated code-quality verification tooling and make sure that its agentic loop will fail on its own when those quality checks fail immediately next time. Do not fall into the trap of appealing to its feelings, knowledge, or experience, because it doesn’t have any of those things.

But for both humans and LLMs, do not fall into the trap of thinking that your code review process is catching your bugs. That’s not its job.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my patrons who are supporting my writing on this blog. If you like what you’ve read here and you’d like to read more of it, or you’d like to support my various open-source endeavors, you can support my work as a sponsor!

As you already know if you’ve read any of this blog in the last few years, I am a somewhat reluctant — but nevertheless quite staunch — critic of LLMs. This means that I have enthusiasts of varying degrees sometimes taking issue with my stance.

It seems that I am not going to get away from discussions, and, let’s be honest, pretty intense arguments about “AI” any time soon. These arguments are starting to make me quite upset. So it might be time to set some rules of engagement.

I’ve written about all of these before at greater length, but this is a short post because it’s not about the technology or making a broader point, it’s about me. These are rules for engaging with me, personally, on this topic. Others are welcome to adopt these rules if they so wish but I am not encouraging anyone to do so.

Thus, I’ve made this post as short as I can so everyone interested in engaging can read the whole thing. If you can’t make it through to the end, then please just follow Rule Zero.

Rule Zero: Maybe Don’t

You are welcome to ignore me. You can think my take is stupid and I can think yours is. We don’t have to get into an Internet Fight about it; we can even remain friends. You do not need to instigate an argument with me at all, if you think that my analysis is so bad that it doesn’t require rebutting.

Rule One: No ‘Just’

As I explained in a post with perhaps the least-predictive title I’ve ever written, “I Think I’m Done Thinking About genAI For Now”, I’ve already heard a bunch of bad arguments. Don’t tell me to ‘just’ use a better model, use an agentic tool, use a more recent version, or use some prompting trick that you personally believe works better. If you skim my work and think that I must not have deeply researched anything or read about it because you don’t like my conclusion, that is wrong.

Rule Two: No ‘Look At This Cool Thing’

Purely as a productivity tool, I have had a terrible experience with genAI. Perhaps you have had a great one. Neat. That’s great for you. As I explained at great length in “The Futzing Fraction”, my concern with generative AI is that I believe it is probably a net negative impact on productivity, based on both my experience and plenty of citations. Go check out the copious footnotes if you’re interested in more detail.

Therefore, I have already acknowledged that you can get an LLM to do various impressive, cool things, sometimes. If I tell you that you will, on average, lose money betting on a slot machine, a picture of a slot machine hitting a jackpot is not evidence against my position.

Rule Two And A Half: Engage In Metacognition

I specifically didn’t title the previous rule “no anecdotes” because data beyond anecdotes may be extremely expensive to produce. I don’t want to say you can never talk to me unless you’re doing a randomized controlled trial. However, if you are going to tell me an anecdote about the way that you’re using an LLM, I am interested in hearing how you are compensating for the well-documented biases that LLM use tends to induce. Try to measure what you can.

Rule Three: Do Not Cite The Deep Magic To Me

As I explained in “A Grand Unified Theory of the AI Hype Cycle”, I already know quite a bit of history of the “AI” label. If you are tempted to tell me something about how “AI” is really such a broad field, and it doesn’t just mean LLMs, especially if you are trying to launder the reputation of LLMs under the banner of jumbling them together with other things that have been called “AI”, I assure you that this will not be convincing to me.

Rule Four: Ethics Are Not Optional

I have made several arguments in my previous writing: there are ethical arguments, efficacy arguments, structuralist arguments, efficiency arguments and aesthetic arguments.

I am happy to, for the purposes of a good-faith discussion, focus on a specific set of concerns or an individual point that you want to make where you think I got something wrong. If you convince me that I am entirely incorrect about the effectiveness or predictability of LLMs in general or as specific LLM product, you don’t need to make a comprehensive argument about whether one should use the technology overall. I will even assume that you have your own ethical arguments.

However, if you scoff at the idea that one should have any ethical boundaries at all, and think that there’s no reason to care about the overall utilitarian impact of this technology, that it’s worth using no matter what else it does as long as it makes you 5% better at your job, that’s sociopath behavior.

This includes extreme whataboutism regarding things like the water use of datacenters, other elements of the surveillance technology stack, and so on.

Consequences

These are rules, once again, just for engaging with me. I have no particular power to enact broader sanctions upon you, nor would I be inclined to do so if I could. However, if you can’t stay within these basic parameters and you insist upon continuing to direct messages to me about this topic, I will summarily block you with no warning, on mastodon, email, GitHub, IRC, or wherever else you’re choosing to do that. This is for your benefit as well: such a discussion will not be a productive use of either of our time.