Aka why my homelab never functions
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
370 points (98.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
28818 readers
675 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Forgetting AI for a moment, I am always shocked when I am reviewing a coworker's code and it's obvious that they themselves didn't review it.
Like, they sent me a PR that has a whole shitload of other crap in it. Why should I look at it when you haven't looked at it? If you don't review your own review requests, you're a failure of a ~~programmer~~ human.
And I would be a failure if I approved such a request.
Getting back to the post, where is all of the review? The coworker should have reviewed the AI shit, whether it was code or documentation. The person who approved the PR should have reviewed it, as well.
Every business with more than one programmer should have at least two levels of safeguards against this exact thing happening. More if you include different types of test suites.
This post describes a fundamentally broken business, regardless of the AI angle, and so it's good if everything is broken. With such a lack of discipline and principles, I say let the business fail.
Yeah, we are falling into a little bit of this where I work right now. It’s a bit of a change of mindset to begin thinking that you can’t trust a PR even a little. Yes, you should be able to but humans are humans and we get lazy and trusting the magic pattern machine is gonna impact everyone’s life in a lot of ways
It’s a bit of a change of mindset to begin thinking that you can’t trust a PR even a little.
It has never occurred to me that other people trust PRs, even a little. I mean, that they might think about it in those terms.
This explains a lot to me.
Why does it take me longer to review code than other people? They trust the person who wrote it, but I don't.
Why is it that when my coworkers think a person is untrustworthy, that they always end up begging me to do all of that person's reviews. It's because I'm not bothered by that. I already treat everybody as untrustworthy.
I've never understood how other people think when they do reviews, I guess.
"Why does everyone hate AI?!?!"
"AI" isn't artificial intelligence...LLMs are a chat bot with a database the size of the world and the resource usage of a country for every prompt.
Its just another way for rich cunts to show off their small dicks and large wallets - look what my money can buy?
How about solving world hunger and not playing with toys.
These miscreants are fucking evil.
History will not judge them well, or anyone who buys into their lies.
My coworkers AND TEAM LEADERS! THATS HOW THEY WRITE AND CODE
Same here, I just keep my phone off while off work. Let them hallucinate a solution.
Oh, man. That blurry thumbnail on my phone screen looked like a naked woman from the waist up, wearing pasties or something.
I feel like my life is writing prompts to AI now. If you don’t fall in line, you’re basically out of a job. A human can’t keep up. If the goal was to completely ruin my desire to write code, they’ve succeeded.
I recently read this blog post and gave it a try. After a little bit of tweaking, I found that it became a useful tool for me while still letting me enjoy coding. It doesn’t fix everything that is wrong with AI development but it does help a lot in my day to day.
TLDR: Add this to your copilot_instructions.md or whatever you use.
When the user gives you a task specification:
1. Explore the codebase to find relevant files and patterns
2. Break the task into a small number of steps. Each step should include:
a. a brief, high-level summary of the step
b. a list of specific, relevant files
c. quotes from the specification to be specific about what each step is for
3. Present the steps and get out of the way.
When the user says "done", "how's this", etc.:
1. Run git status and git diff to see what they changed
2. Review the changes and identify any potential problems
3. Compare changes against the steps and identify which steps are complete
4. Present a revised set of steps and get out of the user's way.
Important:
- Be concise and direct, don't give the user a lot to read
- Allow the user to make all technical, architectural and engineering decisions
- Present possible solutions but don't make any assumptions
- Don't write code - just guide
- Be specific about files and line numbers
- Trust them to figure it out
- Do not offer to write code unless the user specifically requests it. You are a teacher and reviewer, not a developer
- Include checks for idiomatic use of language features when reviewing
- The user has a strong background in C, C++, and Python. Make analogies to those languages when reviewing code in other languages
The last three points are my addition as I am currently do a lot of development in Rust which I have no experience with.
Same here. It's the first time in 30 years that I'm considering doing something different.
20 years in the tech field for me, if you count my start as a graphic artist. I don’t even know what I’d pivot to. Cyber security maybe…?
Yeah, you see this a lot these days. Copilot has many good ideas about how components "should" work.
The worst was one AI hallucinated but really was so perfectly following the pattern of all the ones we already had that it just looked right. When it didn't work, I asked AI to implement it (opensource helm chart), and it said no. That is where the opportunity is. For things like helm charts and what not that are just wrappers, AI should really excel. We could have very consistent interfaces for things like that, and it would save a ton of time.
This is how I felt discovering that DeepWiki is AI generated. I just thought some group was just working towards improving the state of more niche software documentation.