Yes, of course. I mean, is all production code reviewed?

Sorry, I wasn’t giving a serious answer. It’s just not as amusingly worded as in thought.

Seriously, though, your question is one of those “how long is a piece of string” sort of questions. Just like any other software quality question, it depends on context, competence, goals, market dynamics, organizational culture, project timelines, team expertise, etc.

Do people pay their bills on time? Do people wear seatbelts? Do people brush their teeth for the full two recommended minutes? Depends, depends, depends.

Sorry, I didn't realise you weren't the OP. I was really asking the OP as they said they had large productivity gains from using AI to code. But if you're a professional developer, the same question can be answered by you: do you specifically review all AI generated production code?

In my own case 100% of my code is reviewed by humans (generally me), and that IMO is the only sensible option, and has been the standard since I started coding commercially 33 years ago. I don't use AI to generate code though, other than a few experiments, as I don't really need to write much code these days.

This resonates completely—AI coding assistants are flooding queues with high volumes of code, simply shifting the bottleneck from writing to reviewing. Human reviewers get burned out trying to catch subtle security misconfigurations or performance regressions hidden in AI-generated PRs. We built CloudThinker's code review module to act as a rigorous first pass, catching those vulnerabilities with 96% accuracy so developers only spend time reviewing architectural decisions.

If you’re going to spam your product, you could have the decency to have literally any other contributions on your account. It’s literally just advertisements and I’ll bet a straw penny they’re generated by a chatbot.

Ironically they seem to use ai to review ai generated code, which is the main problem.

Indeed. And the ouroboros takes another big bite!