230
After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes (arstechnica.com)
submitted 4 hours ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Amazon’s ecommerce business has summoned a large group of engineers to a meeting on Tuesday for a “deep dive” into a spate of outages, including incidents tied to the use of AI coding tools.

The online retail giant said there had been a “trend of incidents” in recent months, characterized by a “high blast radius” and “Gen-AI assisted changes” among other factors, according to a briefing note for the meeting seen by the FT.

Under “contributing factors” the note included “novel GenAI usage for which best practices and safeguards are not yet fully established.”

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 19 points 1 hour ago

Junior and mid-level engineers will now require more senior engineers to sign off any AI-assisted changes, Treadwell added.

So instead of getting a human to write it and AI peer reviewing it you want the most expensive per hour developers to look at stuff a human didn't write and the other engineers can't explain? Yeah, this is where the efficiency gains disappear.

I read stuff from one of my Jr's all the time and most of it is made with AI. I don't understand most of it and neither does the Dev. He keeps saying how much he's learned from AI but peer programming with him is the pits. I try to say stuff like, "Oops! Looks like we forgot the packages." And then 10 secs of silence later, "So you can go to line 24 and type..."

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 131 points 4 hours ago

"Everyone must use AI."

...

"No! Not like that!"

[-] otter@lemmy.ca 36 points 3 hours ago

...

Do the senior engineers NOT sign off on changes to systems that can take down the production servers? Even if we take out the LLM created code, this sounds like a bigger problem

[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 hour ago

the way private companies work is that they require their employees to produce more than is reasonable given the work quality that is expected.

when this discrepancy is pointed out, it's handwaved away. when the discrepancy results in problems, as it most obviously will, somebody is found to place the blame on.

it's not the developer's faults. it's a management decision.

source: I'm talking out of my ass I'm just a salty employee who is seeing this happen at their own workplace when it didn't used to, at least not to this level

[-] pageflight@piefed.social 18 points 2 hours ago

We may start to see people realize that "have the AI generate slop, humans will catch the mistakes" actually is different from "have humans generate robust code."

[-] daychilde@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Not only that, but writing code is so much easier than understanding code you didn't write. Seems like either you need to be able to trust the AI code, or you're probably better of writing it yourself. Maybe there's some simple yet tedious stuff, but it has to be simple enough to understand and verify faster than you could write it. Or maybe run code through AI to check for bugs and check out any bugs it finds…

I definitely have trusted AI to write miniature pointless little projects - like a little PHP page that loaded music for the current directory and showed a simple JS player in a webpage so I could share Christmas music with my family and friends. No database, no file uploading or anything. It worked decently, although not perfectly, and that's all it needed to do.

[-] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 17 points 3 hours ago

I guarantee there's so much pressure on those engineers to deliver code that they rubber stamp a ton of it with the intention of "fixing it later"

Source: I've worked in software for 20+ years and know a lot of folks working for and who have worked for Amazon

[-] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 4 points 2 hours ago

That's basically the story at all the big tech companies, from what I've heard. In my time at Facebook, I felt like the only person who actually read the merge requests that people sent me before hitting it with "LGTM"

[-] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

If companies are going to place increasing reliance on review due to having lower-quality submissions, then they should probably evaluate employees weighting review quality (say, oh, rate of bugs subsequently discovered in reviewed commits or something like that).

[-] criss_cross@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

When I worked there 20% of the work we had to do had to go through a senior engineer. And getting his time was like pulling teeth.

More of the time he would just nitpick grammar in docs and then finally rubber stamp work. It was awful.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 72 points 4 hours ago

Well that's going to make your senior developers quit.

[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 hour ago

I am not a developer, but:

I told the owner of the company recently that, and I quote, "I will fucking kill myself if my job becomes reviewing AI output"

[-] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago

Never kill yourself for something that's somebody else's fault.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 53 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Exactly. If you're too stupid or lazy to adequately vet what your LLM puts out yourself, it shouldn't be somebody else's job to wade through the sewage you're producing. You either shouldn't be using one or, if you can't do your job without it, you shouldn't have that job.

—Someone who doesn't use genAI but has spent way too much time digging through LLM slop

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 31 points 3 hours ago

You know what my favorite pizza topping is? Bleach.

Dominoes REFUSES to put bleach on my pizza, so I gotta do it myself. I found out about it from AI. Now my pizza tastes great! The downside is having to go to the hospital to get a stomach pump everytime.

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I mean honestly yeah, I'm not going to waste my time with some junior developer who can't explain how the code works and how it interacts with whatever framework I'm working on. I ain't got time for that nonsense, especially when the code I deal with involves safety critical sections of code.

Honestly if my work ever decided to allow unfettered AI code generation into my code base, I would immediately look for a new job at that point.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

it's pretty fucking stark right? these are the devs that stayed after management mandated they USE the shit in the first place, now they want the same devs to become responsible for what the shit does to their codebases.

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

“You are now a senior auditor.”

[-] Hegar@fedia.io 6 points 3 hours ago

It's going to make snr devs get fired, surely?

They either refuse to sign off when boss wants them to and get fired or sign off and get fired when ai code they signed off on causes issues.

[-] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 1 points 58 minutes ago

How can they fire them ?

They're not employing them to look pretty you know.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Bingo.

Maybe not outright fired, but absolutely open them up to career limits based on what you described.

All of Amazon's code undergoes code reviews already. Accepting a PR is already spiritually a sign off.

This is just explicitly a threat, explicitly trying to find someone to hold accountable because you can't hold ai accountable. What are they gonna do, fire the ai? Sign here to be the fall guy. Fuck off.

[-] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 9 points 4 hours ago

You’re absolutely right!

[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

xD

Guess that all-in-on-AI attitude was not such a bold and brilliant idea after all.

[-] Airfried@piefed.social 4 points 2 hours ago

The way AI is being pushed onto workers on a global scale has to be the dumbest thing to ever happen in the work space. Executives are getting hysterical over something they don't even try to understand and even governments shower companies in subsidies if they do anything with AI. Of course the only result so far are mass layoffs and exploding costs for energy and hardware. All the while economies are crumbling everywhere because of course they do when mass unemployment sweeps around the globe. And again, governments everywhere are subsiding this crap with tax payer money. What's even worse than all of that is the insane environmental damage all of this causes. But I'll have to cut myself short here because I'm just getting increasingly upset here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: We're funding our own decline in rapid speed. Human stupidity has found a new peak in 2026 and it's not even close. I knew the way AI was advertised was completely overblown years ago but I never anticipated it would get this bad this quickly.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 3 points 2 hours ago

They want to move fast and break things but they still want a few meat bags around to blame when things inevitable blow up in their faces.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 28 minutes ago

They don’t want to break the things that hurt their bottom line.

Break society and make everyone hate each other? Hey buddy - small price to pay. Gotta think of the shareholders, after all. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

[-] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 10 points 3 hours ago

Aren't their names already on the commits? Or is the AI given write access to their code repository?

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

I think you already know the answer to that.

[-] TingoTenga@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Somwthing similar just happened to McKinsey, too.

[-] jbrains@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 hours ago

Hard no.

[-] mavu@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 hours ago

I wonder how well that is received by their staff :D

this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
230 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

82489 readers
3509 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws