If a reviewer makes a comment, Critique will create an AI suggestion based on their comment, even if they didn’t explicitly do so (unless they turn off giving AI suggestions on their end, but there’s no way to stop from seeing it from the other).
> not by ruling out AI tools just because they're AI tools.
This was not my point at all.
The point is that Google force feeds AI tools, and makes it difficult to opt out. In many cases it is not possible as shown with GenAI search.
We all have unique circumstances, but I can almost guarantee you that you'll be absurdly happier elsewhere.
Life's short, and no matter how much you save, something can take it away.
Better to start pursuing it now, than after being the sacrificial MI, or after the call from HR asking you to chill because a VP got upset and had lackeys reverse engineer your identity.
Well, that's easy for you to say. People have family to feed, right?
Thanks for your insightful contribution - I read the post again and found this right after what you found, like, right after. I hope this helps clarify
Guarantee with what? Personal money? I know people who have more than 3+ years of experience having trouble with getting an offer after months of searching these days. What can you offer to guarantee the "happiness" "elsewhere"?
Such a ridiculous, out of touch comment.
I agree this may not be how they are used, but honestly, code review is a skill and many people are bad at it. Blindly suggesting things because an AI (or a presubmit) suggests it is bad form regardless of the source. People slam that "please fix" button without looking at what it's asking for, or without reading my detailed explanations of why I'm ignoring a recommendation, etc. This was already a problem and AI isn't changing that.
We can make code review better, but that comes through training reviewers better, not by ruling out AI tools just because they're AI tools.