Engineer reviews should measure better judgment, not how much code AI wrote
rseroter · x · 2026-07-23
The post argues that a growth review should not measure how much code was AI-generated. Instead, it should ask what judgment the engineer can now make that they could not make six months ago, and whether that judgment transfers to new problems.
In other words, the metric is not output volume, but whether AI helped the engineer develop better decision-making that generalizes beyond the current task.
More from Companies & People
- Multica says community PR review is so costly it still has 400+ unmerged requests — jiayuan_jy · 2026-07-23
- Post says the U.S. led open models first, then let closed models take over — cocktailpeanut · 2026-07-23
- For enterprise AI agents, the first question is ownership and governance, not Copilot Studio vs. Foundry — WirelessLife · 2026-07-23
- WAIC speaker says world models are gaining real momentum in China — smtabatabaie · 2026-07-23
- User criticizes Anthropic strategy: RLHF unbearable, Chinese models more practical — StewartalsopIII · 2026-07-23
- AI-culture joke says you now have to LARP to succeed — KadriJibraan · 2026-07-23