If the answer were as simple as “finding defects,” then a fully automated review starts to sound inevitable (and appealing).

But if code review was also how teams shared knowledge, built collective ownership, spread architectural understanding, and taught junior engineers how experienced developers think, then the answer becomes much less obvious.

That’s the mistake I think many organizations are about to make, and the reason we need to rethink what code review is actually for.

Accessibility is one of those rare concepts that almost nobody argues against. Making websites easier to navigate for people with disabilities is a fairly uncontested virtue. Semantic HTML, descriptive links, meaningful image descriptions, and keyboard navigation all help create a web that is more inclusive and usable.

Yet the AI era has introduced an unexpected, deeply ironic wrinkle into this story. The websites doing the most to make information accessible to humans are often the same websites making it easiest for machines to harvest. Obviously, this was never the goal. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) were developed to help people, not artificial intelligence.