We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap reports

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 11:47 AM UTC

causalscience wrote: post #44

nchmy wrote: post #11

I've been helping a bit with OWASP documentation lately and there's been a surge of Indian students eagerly opening nonsensical issues and PRs and all of the communication and code is clearly 100% LLMs. They'll even talk back and forth with each other. It's a huge headache for the maintainers. I suggested following what Ghostty does where everything starts as discussions - only maintainers create issues, and PRs can…

> Indian students Is this cultural? I ran a small business some years ago (later failed) and was paying for contract work to various people. At the I perceived the pattern that Indian contractors would never ever ask for clarifications, would never say they didn't know something, would never say they didn't understand something, etc. Instead they just ran with whatever they happened to have in their mind, until I cal…

Post by yrro » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 11:48 AM UTC

Post by ironbound » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 11:50 AM UTC

blitzar wrote: post #49

skeptic_ai wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you don’t just put an AI guardian to close or to ask them to change the story. Or shadow ban

the only way to stop a bad guy with a llm is with a good guy with a llm

Post by pharrington » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 11:51 AM UTC

hypeatei wrote: post #51

> We will ban you and ridicule you in public if you waste our time on crap If shame worked, then slop reports would've stopped being made already. Public ridicule only creates a toxic environment where good faith actors are caught up in unnecessary drama because a maintainer felt their time was being wasted. Ban them, close your bug bounty program, whatever, but don't start attacking people when you feel slighted bec…

Post by nchmy » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 11:52 AM UTC

zoho_seni wrote: post #84

mikkupikku wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subjecting every real contributor to the "AI guardian" would be unfair, and shadow banning is ineffective when you're dealing with a large number of drive-by nuisances rather than a small number of dedicated trolls. Public humiliation is actually a great solution here.

You could easily guard against bullshit issues. So you can focus on what matters. If the issue is legit goes ahead to a human reviewer. If is run of the mill ai low quality or irrelevant issue, just close. Or even nicer: let the person that opened the issue to "argue" with the ai to further explain that is legit issue for false positives.