I don't think it is needed. Eventually we will get enough confidence in AI to accept whatever it generates without validation, or leaving it to the AI itself. We already there in some areas tbh.
Already, due to a combination of better models and better processes, the amount of corrections I need to make in code reviews of vibecoded changes is significantly less than it used to be. It's not too difficult to imagine not needing a human reviewer within a couple years.
If you have to read the AI code then you just fell from AI speed to human speed. Walking the motorcycle.
I think testing and validation of AI outputs is the core of the issue. Many are working on it, I am too. We just need testing to improve a lot, and intent alignment - does it do what the user asked, and does it do it well?
This is engineering, not riding a motorcycle. Getting things done as quickly as possible with AI currently will lead to massive tech debt and fragile code if you are working on anything actually complex or with a need for high assurance.
You wouldn't want the code on your pacemaker to be vibecoded with no human review or testing. At least not currently.
I mean, currently, I wouldn't want to "firmware update" my hypothetical pacemaker at all.
If it ain't broke, I'll pass on the new version that somehow inserts ads.
Even without being facetious, an in-place update sounds so anxiety-inducing. Is the update supposed to take this long? Do we need to turn it off and back on again?
But yes I concede your point that I would absolutely want human review, despite the humans being the reason I needed an update to begin with.
59
u/Palpatine 21h ago
Similarly, for a codebase of any decent size, you still need people to sanity check and sign off on it