Treat Agent Output Like Compiler Output | Skip
Why our discomfort with AI-generated code reveals exactly what we haven't built yet, and what the compiler analogy teaches us about trusting coding agents.
Philip Su's recent post argues that code reviews are not just impractical in the age of coding agents, they're headed toward being irresponsible . He's right on trend. But I think the framing of "lights-out codebases" skips over the more interesting and uncomfortable question: why does lights-out feel so scary , and what does that fear actually tell us? The answer, I think, is hiding in something we already used once before and then promptly forgot we did: the compiler. Nobody Reviews Compiler Output Think about how you relate to your compiler. You write C++, Rust, Go, and the toolchain spit
saved by
related reading
- Your job is to deliver code you have proven to worksimonwillison.net
- AI is removing the middle class of software engineeringblog.florianherrengt.com
- Thoughts on slowing the fuck downmariozechner.at
- Agentic Coding is a Trap | Lars Fayelarsfaye.com
- claude code is not making your product betterethanding.substack.com
- The Eternal Sloptember | the singularity is nearergeohot.github.io
- Would you fly on an AI-coded plane | Hackle's bloghacklewayne.com
- When AI Writes the World's Software, Who Verifies It? — Leonardo de Mouraleodemoura.github.io
- "Do You Still Read the Code?"zanlib.dev
- Why write code in 2026softwaredoug.com
- Thoughts on slowing the fuck downmariozechner.at
- If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agentsseangoedecke.com