Comparison was done in the scope of coderabbit AI code review tool, which sadly makes it practically irrelevant.
My personal experience as a software engineer, and a former security researcher who did manual code audit, is that this code review tool has such poor results that it isn't worth the "noise" and friction it causes developers during C/I code review
They do catch important things but it’s really contextual. You can’t grab a model slap it on top and say code review . Hence a dedicated review tool is almost dead . Code review should be part of your pipeline and consume test results from the original task , open spec etc . If you do not have that code review will not help if you do , what is the point of task rabbit just slap <your harness in the sandbox> review against <goal>
Yeah I personally don’t understand the point of AI code review tools all that much, as AI is already generating the code as well. All of these AI code review tools create so much noise, yet don’t catch the really important things.
All of these are angles an AI reviewer can test for as well, and will (IME) mostly catch mistakes correctly. I also still manually review code, and usually also catch issues, but the severity of what I find shrinks ever further as agents get better.
The sprawling code comments are becoming the most draining part of code review though, that's really killing me from the inside.
The AI review are still quite far from having the same level of critical thinking and high level knowledge of your application, what you have done in the past and want to do next etc.
If you don't master this for your own project, what's even the point of your job.
That's a thoroughly uncharitable view. Especially in smaller orgs with a minimum velocity dictated by the company's need to survive, the amount of code required to be written just to keep up with your competitors is massive. Trying to review that all by hand, thoroughly, is draining, thankless, and tedious. You end up with a few fast movers producing most of the code, and some slower movers forced into a reviewer role they never signed up for. It's an unhealthy dynamic.
That likely won’t change if other competitors don’t take the lead at some point. If companies are willing to pay top dollar for the best models AND they get to extract as much money from Chinese labs distilling Astra/Fable it makes no sense to lower prices. Obviously not great for everyday users who don’t have unlimited money.
That should be expected based on the scaling laws that we expect; larger models are more intelligent and cost more. Now it's very unfortunately that they don't publish the size of their models.
Astra seems to be really slow. Maybe it intends to read more context. But from my experience it is definitely slower than 5.6 sol when handling same tasks.
Comparison was done in the scope of coderabbit AI code review tool, which sadly makes it practically irrelevant.
My personal experience as a software engineer, and a former security researcher who did manual code audit, is that this code review tool has such poor results that it isn't worth the "noise" and friction it causes developers during C/I code review
They do catch important things but it’s really contextual. You can’t grab a model slap it on top and say code review . Hence a dedicated review tool is almost dead . Code review should be part of your pipeline and consume test results from the original task , open spec etc . If you do not have that code review will not help if you do , what is the point of task rabbit just slap <your harness in the sandbox> review against <goal>
Yeah I personally don’t understand the point of AI code review tools all that much, as AI is already generating the code as well. All of these AI code review tools create so much noise, yet don’t catch the really important things.
What really important things are human reviews catching in your org?
I just feel more and more like the effort invested in manual reviews is not worth it
1. Whether the thing should be done in the first place
2. If it's the correct solution on a high level
3. Whether it conflicts with or duplicates other parts of the system
4. Whether the comments are actually useful or restating the LLM chat
Also many others but these are the most common IME
All of these are angles an AI reviewer can test for as well, and will (IME) mostly catch mistakes correctly. I also still manually review code, and usually also catch issues, but the severity of what I find shrinks ever further as agents get better.
The sprawling code comments are becoming the most draining part of code review though, that's really killing me from the inside.
The AI review are still quite far from having the same level of critical thinking and high level knowledge of your application, what you have done in the past and want to do next etc.
If you don't master this for your own project, what's even the point of your job.
Code review tools are designed for less organised dev teams that don’t do PRs and mandatory human reviews already.
It is papering over a lower level of competency without having to invest in actual human oversight or real process improvement.
That's a thoroughly uncharitable view. Especially in smaller orgs with a minimum velocity dictated by the company's need to survive, the amount of code required to be written just to keep up with your competitors is massive. Trying to review that all by hand, thoroughly, is draining, thankless, and tedious. You end up with a few fast movers producing most of the code, and some slower movers forced into a reviewer role they never signed up for. It's an unhealthy dynamic.
It does add lot of noise after a point you start ignoring the suggestions and findings.
Code generated these days with fable and sol are near perfect. What issues they might have is logical errors.
> Code generated these days with fable and sol are near perfect.
If you're doing a simple CRUD app, sure.
If you're doing anything more involved they get the job done with dozens of shortcuts that bite you in the ass the moment you have on-call duty.
Way too much code and repetition and hacks.
Especially in GPU code, but also in other fields.
Both OAI and Anthropic seem to have released a model that is slightly better but cost ~2x the previous iteration. Interesting play
That likely won’t change if other competitors don’t take the lead at some point. If companies are willing to pay top dollar for the best models AND they get to extract as much money from Chinese labs distilling Astra/Fable it makes no sense to lower prices. Obviously not great for everyday users who don’t have unlimited money.
That should be expected based on the scaling laws that we expect; larger models are more intelligent and cost more. Now it's very unfortunately that they don't publish the size of their models.
Astra and Sol are the same price when you factor in token efficiency
I don't know, in the Codex app, it burns the limit much faster.
Bullshit.
Roughly how we price (high skilled) human labor.
Interesting comment because it is true that Astra is costlier for the same intelligence tasks as Sol.
But this is not the same for Fable at all.
Astra seems to be really slow. Maybe it intends to read more context. But from my experience it is definitely slower than 5.6 sol when handling same tasks.
It's a bigger model, of course it's slower.
From what I can tell, its shit.