The concept of "AI will review AI-authored PRs" seems completely wrong to me. Why didn't the AI write the correct code in the first place?
If it takes 17 rounds of review from 5 different models/harnesses – I don't care. Just spit out the right code the first time. Otherwise I'm wasting my time clicking "review this" over and over until the PR is worth actually having a human look at.
I've had tinnitus for almost a decade now. It gets better.
The first six months were hell because I kept focusing on how awful it was. Eventually you stop noticing it. It just becomes part of the background – like how the sky is blue, grass is green, etc.
I strongly recommend reading "Living with Tinnitus" by Laura Cole. Tinnitus is a very poorly-understood condition, but hearing about the experiences of others helps a lot. I hope you feel better soon. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37707931-living-with-tin...
I've found Bugbot to be shockingly effective at finding bugs in my PRs. Even when it's wrong, it's usually worth adding a comment, since it's the kind of mistake a human reviewer would make.
Right, but you do avoid worries like "will I have to update this dependency every week and deal with breaking changes?" or "will the author be compromised in a supply-chain attack, or do a deliberate protestware attack?" etc. As for performance, a lot of npm packages don't have proper tree-shaking, so you might be taking on extra bloat (or installation cost). Your point is well-taken, though.
My wife also got the same result, so I'm guessing it wasn't just because I was using my personal Claude account. Spooky stuff.