@charliermarsh: For uv/ty/Ruff, I think the answer is kind of circular: as soon as reading the code stops revealing meaningful problems…

X AI KOLs Following News

Summary

Charlie Marsh discusses the threshold for trusting AI-generated code in tools like uv and Ruff, suggesting that improvements in models, harnesses, and verification are needed before he stops manually reviewing the code.

For uv/ty/Ruff, I think the answer is kind of circular: as soon as reading the code stops revealing meaningful problems. Likely solved by a mix of better models, better harnesses, better verification, and overcoming my own skill issues.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 07/06/26, 12:06 PM

For uv/ty/Ruff, I think the answer is kind of circular: as soon as reading the code stops revealing meaningful problems. Likely solved by a mix of better models, better harnesses, better verification, and overcoming my own skill issues.

Theo - t3.gg (@theo): How much better do the models have to get before you’ll stop reading the code?

Similar Articles

When I reject AI code even if it works

Hacker News Top

The author explains why they often reject AI-generated code even when it works, citing reasons like inability to explain the approach, overly large diffs, premature abstractions, and reduced system reasoning, and argues for mandatory human review.

How do you know when an AI coding agent is actually done?

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The author built OpenPitStop, an open-source tool that independently checks and verifies the work of AI coding agents, demonstrated on a broken application, and invites discussion on how to trust AI changes.