Comment by smaudet
I guess my challenge is that "if it was a rote recitation of an idiomatic go function", was it worth writing?
There is a certain, style, lets say, of programming, that encourages highly non re-usable code that is both at once boring and tedious, and impossible to maintain and thus not especially worthwhile.
The "rote code" could probably have been expressed, succinctly, in terms that border on "plain text", but with more rigueur de jour, with less overpriced, wasteful, potentially dangerous models in-between.
And yes, machines like the eBPF verifier must follow strict rules to cut out the chaff, of which there is quite a lot, but it neither follows that we should write everything in eBPF, nor does it follow that because something can throw out the proverbial "garbage", that makes it a good model to follow...
Put another way, if it was that rote, you likely didn't need nor benefit from the AI to begin with, a couple well tested library calls probably sufficed.
I would put it differently: when you already have a mental model of what the code is supposed to do and how, then reviewing is easy: just check that the code conforms to that model.
With an arbitrary PR from a colleague or security audit, you have to come up with mental model first, which is the hardest part.