As AI generates more code than humans can review, the validation bottleneck emerges. The solution is providing agents with dedicated, sandboxed environments to run tests and verify functionality before a human sees the code, shifting review from process to outcome.

AI can produce scientific claims and codebases thousands of times faster than humans. However, the meticulous work of validating these outputs remains a human task. This growing gap between generation and verification could create a backlog of unproven ideas, slowing true scientific advancement.

To maximize an AI agent's effectiveness, establish foundational software engineering practices like typed languages, linters, and tests. These tools provide the necessary context and feedback loops for the AI to identify, understand, and correct its own mistakes, making it more resilient.

AI acts as a massive force multiplier for software development. By using AI agents for coding and code review, with humans providing high-level direction and final approval, a two-person team can achieve the output of a much larger engineering organization.

As AI writes most of the code, the highest-leverage human activity will shift from reviewing pull requests to reviewing the AI's research and implementation plans. Collaborating on the plan provides a narrative journey of the upcoming changes, allowing for high-level course correction before hundreds of lines of bad code are ever generated.

To ensure comprehension of AI-generated code, developer Terry Lynn created a "rubber duck" rule in his AI tool. This prompts the AI to explain code sections and even create pop quizzes about specific functions. This turns the development process into an active learning tool, ensuring he deeply understands the code he's shipping.

While AI coding assistants appear to boost output, they introduce a "rework tax." A Stanford study found AI-generated code leads to significant downstream refactoring. A team might ship 40% more code, but if half of that increase is just fixing last week's AI-generated "slop," the real productivity gain is much lower than headlines suggest.

Borrowing from classic management theory, the most effective way to use AI agents is to fix problems at the earliest 'lowest value stage'. This means rigorously reviewing the agent's proposed plan *before* it writes any code, preventing costly rework later on.

It's infeasible for humans to manually review thousands of lines of AI-generated code. The abstraction of review is moving up the stack. Instead of checking syntax, developers will validate high-level plans, two-sentence summaries, and behavioral outcomes in a testing environment.