Do we need to review all this code?

Rachel Laycock says AI writes more code than people can review, so we should stop making every change wait for a human. Humans would keep the risky stuff: architecture, security, anything big or unsure. I like the diagnosis. I trust her numbers less.

She got them second-hand, from a Meta paper and a company that sells AI measurement. Even the writer who passed them on says big code changes are an old problem, just scaled up. So AI made an old mess louder. Not a crisis, a Tuesday.

Review also teaches a team the code. If an agent built it, nobody learned it. And "review by exception" leaves the hard part open: who decides what the exception is?

I can't answer the question about juniors. If review is where they learn and we replace it with pairing, who has time to pair?