Reducing the cognitive load of AI changes

Lobsters Hottest Tools

Summary

Andrew Moffat shares a pre-review workflow for AI-generated code: use a prompt to extract bespoke LLM-chosen terminology, let the human confirm or override each term, then have the AI do a global find-and-replace so the code reads like it came from the reviewer's own brain, reducing accumulated cognitive load.

<p><a href="https://lobste.rs/s/iwvjr0/reducing_cognitive_load_ai_changes">Comments</a></p>
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 10/01/26, 02:25 PM

# Reducing the cognitive load of AI changes Source: [https://amoffat.github.io/blog/cognitive-load.html](https://amoffat.github.io/blog/cognitive-load.html) Andrew · 1 October 2026 · 2 min read When reviewing large amounts of AI\-generated code, I often find that the LLM chooses terms for abstractions that do not always map to my own choices\. For instance, what it may call a`MutationIntent`might personally be more natural to me as an`EditRequest`\. Because the LLM's choice of words is not my ideal choice, I have to do a mental lookup of what it means every time I see it, which adds cognitive load\. This may seem like a small friction, but the cognitive load accumulates when considering how dozens of new terms interact in unfamiliar code\. I can only hold a finite number of these semantic lookups in my head before I start misinterpreting how things work\. To minimize this, before review, I post\-process AI changes with this prompt: ``` Please review the changes and extract any unconventional or bespoke terms used for abstract objects, processes and concepts. Create a temporary markdown file with each term, its meaning and why it was chosen, and some proposed alternative terms for it. I will then use this markdown file to confirm the term choice or to provide my own custom term. You will then incorporate any changes. The goal here is to map your language choices to my own language choices so that I can understand the concepts more easily. ``` I then go through and confirm term choices\. The AI does find\-and\-replace everywhere, including documentation\. The resulting code is much easier to review because now it's written more like it came from my brain\.

Similar Articles

Surviving Code Reviews in the era of AI

Lobsters Hottest

The author discusses challenges with large code diffs caused by AI use in code reviews and seeks advice on strategies to handle this while maintaining human comprehension.

Reviewing AI Code Is Not A Viable Argument (2025)

Lobsters Hottest

The article argues that requiring thorough code review negates the supposed productivity gains of LLM coding assistants, as empirical research shows they do not help write code better or faster, and proponents fail to address the inherent error rates.

Using AI to write better code more slowly

Lobsters Hottest

Nolan Lawson argues that AI coding assistants can be used to write high-quality code slowly by employing multiple models for thorough code review and bug detection, improving codebase health rather than maximizing output speed.