News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Resisting Cognitive Surrender by cowlevel on Monday November 02, 2026 @11:05PM (#50347920)
Even if the human's judgement is correct in every LGTM, there's a bias towards merging. Each merge that adds a feature but degrades understandability 1% will be merged. It won't be held back until it improves it by 5% instead. After 100 merges you have degraded understandability 100% even though nobody made an error.
Re:Resisting Cognitive Surrender by unpleasurable on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @12:15AM (#50348370)
I think it's about 63%
Re:Resisting Cognitive Surrender by californical on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @12:39AM (#50348502)
You’re completely right that nobody is stopping a PR that just ever so slightly decreases understandability of something. It may not even be obvious to the reviewer that it’s slightly less understandable overall… Doubly so if they’re just skimming due to the volume, and tripley so if they’re having agents do the most of the review, which lets the human reviewer’s guard down.

But before LLMs, it didn’t matter because on a good team you’d have a balance where maybe some PRs added complexity and some simplified it. Sometimes people would include a small related cleanup or reactor in a PR for code around what they were doing if they noticed complexity. That has become far less common, I think.

I know it’s not your point, but a 1% decrease 100 times is 0.99^100 = 0.366 which is a 63.4% decrease in understandability. Just throwing that out there

Re:Resisting Cognitive Surrender by lioeters on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @12:47AM (#50348539)
Glad to see the math corrected, the sloppy calculation was bothering me also.
Re:Resisting Cognitive Surrender by sowhat1 on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @02:40AM (#50349172)
So exactly like before AI? ;)

Enterprise software has always been crap.