If you replace a junior with #LLM and make the senior review output, the reviewer is now scanning for rare but catastrophic errors scattered across a much larger output surface due to LLM "productivity."

That's a cognitively brutal task.

Humans are terrible at sustained vigilance for rare events in high-volume streams. Aviation, nuclear, radiology all have extensive literature on exactly this failure mode.

I propose any productivity gains will be consumed by false negative review failures.

@pseudonym It's certainly like that.

FWIW though LLMs don't have any shame or feeling they need to manage their reputation.

If you tell the same LLM that produced the report that it is now the QA manager and it must review the report from the standpoints of checking for missing or inaccurate citations, dubious claims or non-concise text, it will rat itself out and can be told to fix what it found.

This is the same LLM entirely...

@hopeless @pseudonym you are suggesting that you can just layer more shit onto the shit and after enough layers of shit it becomes not shit.
@nor4 @hopeless @pseudonym maybe it works better as a sewage treatment plant analogy. Probably still full of microplastics though.