Yeah. Pretty much.

The actual policy is that it all gets reviewed by a human I think when I was looking into it.

The bots are likely most useful to reject obviously bad patches which have obvious bugs or don't follow guidelines. And identifying bad code is something which AI tends to be good at.

In our code at work, we use weakly typed languages which aren't strict and on those it tends to be even better. We catch things like table keys that are typed wrong, etc. On C, things like pointers it probably does a good job with identifying as wrong

If it passes AI code review it still gets checked by human for things that are wrong and needs fixing. But if it fails, it probably needs fixing regardless.

We are completely overwhelmed, of course. The glimmer of hope is that we secured sufficient LLM budget and access (thank you Meta!) to run reviews with multiple frontier models on each patch. This eliminates some hallucinations.

That’s not the author’s words, it’s a quote from the Linux mailing list…

Also, looking through the authors articles, frankly, the list looks like low quality human slop.

https://davidgerard.co.uk/other.html

And I can't find any evidence they're actually involved with any development projects either. Literally ANY projects including stupid little pet ones every dev has