AI broke code review. Two experts disagree on what replaces it.

Ask two experienced engineers about how to handle the flood of AI-generated code in their review queues, and you’ll get two different answers.

The debate remains very much unsettled. And on Tuesday, September 29, two industry leaders will join a live event to hash out what to do.

John Bristowe, Principal Developer Advocate at Octopus Deploy, will join Viktor Farcic, the platform engineering voice behind DevOps Toolkit, for the live conversation we’re calling “Human Review vs. Verified Pipelines: What Catches Bugs in the Age of AI Code.”

REGISTER NOW FOR THIS WEBINAR

How is your team currently verifying AI-written code? *

Please select Manual code review only Some automated checks, mostly manual Evaluating pipeline-based verification tools Actively implementing a verification pipeline Already have one, refining it

Email *

First Name *

Last Name *

Job Role *

Please select AI Researcher / Research Scientist Architect Business Development/Marketing/Sales Community Manager / Developer Advocate Data Analyst / Business Intelligence Analyst Data Engineer Data Scientist Developer / Software Engineer DevOps Engineer Educator / Instructor Enthusiast/Hobbyist Founder / Entrepreneur / Investor / VC IT management, including CIO/CISO/CTO/CDO Machine Learning Engineer MLOps Engineer / Infrastructure Engineer Product Manager Security / Privacy Professional Statistician / Quantitative Analyst Student SysAdmin/Operations/SRE Technical Writer UX / UI Designer / Data Visualization Specialist Job Level *

Please select C-Level Founder/Owner VP/Director Manager/Supervisor Mid Level or Senior Individual Contributor Entry Level or Junior Individual Contributor Freelancer/Contractor Educator (Teacher, Instructor, Professor) Student/Intern Other N/A Industry *

Please select Advertising/Marketing Aerospace/Aviation Agriculture Automotive Biotech/Pharmaceutical Business Services (accounting, consulting, etc.) Computers/Information Technology Construction Education Facilities/Service Industry Finance/Financial Services (banking, insurance, etc.) Government Healthcare Human Resources Legal Life sciences (biotech, pharmaceuticals, etc.) Manufacturing Media Non-profit Real Estate Retail/Consumer Goods Telecommunications Transportation/Logistics Travel/Hospitality/Entertainment Utility/Energy Organization *

Country *

Please select United States Canada United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Congo (Democratic Republic) Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea (North) Korea (South) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe State *

Phone Number

Register By registering, you consent to The New Stack’s Privacy Policy, Terms of Use and to receiving email communication from The New Stack and our event partner. You may opt out at any time.

You have successfully registered for the webinar.

Here are the facts: Developers have adopted AI en masse. According to the 2026 DORA report, 90% of developers now use AI at work. The result? Developers are merging 98% more pull requests than they managed in the pre-AI era.

But all that AI-generated code is leaving a mess. Bugs per developer are up 54%, and one analysis of 10,000 developers found that incidents per pull request have climbed a staggering 243%. Octopus Deploy’s own AI Pulse report found that while AI usage enables faster code creation, it can “degrade overall performance” because coding agents write large code updates that humans struggle to fully understand.

Part of the problem is that developers have adopted automated code generation faster than they have adopted automated code review, effectively moving the human bottleneck further down the software creation chain without removing it entirely. And AI code review may have the same shortcomings as the coding agents.

Bristowe argues that code review has quietly become little more than theater. No human reviewer can quickly audit a 40,000-line, agent-created pull request, since they were not part of the reasoning that produced it and cannot realistically understand everything it may change.

What does Bristowe recommend? Moving the quality gate off the humans’ desks and into the delivery pipeline itself. Does that mean more AI? Not necessarily, with the developer advocate arguing that building robust “policy-as-code” rules into deployment standards can flag only what goes against those policies. Humans can handle those exceptions, without pretending they are “reviewing” the entire package.

Expect Farcic to press Bristowe on how well a policy-as-code setup can truly absorb judgment, and whether we’re simply creating another accountability sink in software development. The conversation will also explore the plight of the junior engineer, who can no longer expect to join a team of humans writing code that other humans review and discuss.

The debate kicks off at 2:30 p.m. Eastern/11:30 a.m. Pacific on Tuesday, September 29. It’s free to attend, and attendees will receive a companion resource built from Octopus Deploy’s AI Pulse data, available immediately for participants who show up live. Register today.

What you’ll take away:

Why AI-generated code broke the assumptions code review was built on, and why more review isn’t the fix

Why using AI to review AI’s own code doesn’t close the gap (same training data, same blind spots)

How to build a pipeline that verifies every deployment against a defined set of rules, no matter who or what wrote the code

Where code review still earns its keep, and where it needs to step aside for the pipeline

The post AI broke code review. Two experts disagree on what replaces it. appeared first on The New Stack.