I recently had a quandary at work. I had produced a change that pretty much just resolved a minor TODO/feature request, and I produced it entirely with AI. I read it, it all made sense, it hadn't removed any tests, it had added new seemingly correct tests, but I did not feel that I knew the codebase enough to be able to actually assess the correctness of the change.

I want to do good engineering, not produce slop, but for 1 min of prompting, 5 mins of tidying, and 30 mins of review, we might save 2 days of eng time. That has to be worth something.

I could see a few ways forward:

- Drop it, submit a feature request instead, include the diff as optional inspiration.

- Send it, but be clear that it came from AI, I don't know if it works, and ask the reviewers to pay special attention to it because of that...

- Or Send it as normal, because it passes tests/linters, and review should be the same regardless of author or provenance.

I posted this to a few chat groups and got quite a range of opinions, including varying approach by how much I like the maintainer. Strong opinions for (1), weak preferences for (2), and a few advocating for (3).

Interestingly, the pro-AI folks almost universally doubled down and said that I should use AI more to gain more confidence – ask how can I test it, how can we verify it, etc – to move my confidence instead of changing how review works.

I thought that was an interesting idea that I hadn't pushed enough, so I spent a further hour or so prompting around ways to gain confidence, throughout which the AI "fixed" so many things to "improve" the code that I completely lost all confidence in the change because there were clearly things that were needed and things that weren't, and disentangling them was going to be way more work than starting from scratch. So I went with option 1, and didn't include a diff.