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

Post by nchmy » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 12:48 PM UTC

ohyoutravel wrote: post #161

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…

I contribute regularly to some major open source projects and it’s happening here too. So many issues that aren’t issues. Constant “fixing” of documentation that doesn’t need to be fixed. Bug reports that aren’t bugs, followed by a bad PR “fixing” the “bug.” Or YOLOing an LLM PR to change major behavior that users are relying on. And I click and the authors are always brand new, with only vibe coded or examples proje…

Post by johnnylambada » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 12:50 PM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #40

compounding_it wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Indian students Resume glorification and LinkedIn / GitHub profile attention do that. I am seeing a lot of people coming up with perceived knowledge that's just LLM echo chambers. Code they contribute comes straight out of LLMs. This is generally fine as long as they know what it does. But when you ask them to make some changes, some are as lost as ever. Torvalds was right, code maintenance is going to be a headache…

Regard to code maintenance: I’m actually of the mind it will be easier IF you follow a few rules. Code maintenance is already a hassle. The solution is to maintain the intent or the original requirements in the code or documentation. With LLMs, that means carrying through any prompts and to ensure there are tests generated which prove that the generated code matches the intent of the tests. Yes, I get that a million…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 12:50 PM UTC

nelox wrote: post #61

causalscience wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This sounds like a real cross-cultural mismatch, but it’s doing too much work with nationality alone. In a lot of Indian (and broader South Asian) work contexts, questioning instructions can be read as challenging authority or admitting incompetence, so people default to executing without asking. That’s often reinforced by education systems and contractor dynamics where producing something quickly feels safer than pa…

Post by Symbiote » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 12:52 PM UTC

nchmy wrote: post #191

ohyoutravel wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I contribute regularly to some major open source projects and it’s happening here too. So many issues that aren’t issues. Constant “fixing” of documentation that doesn’t need to be fixed. Bug reports that aren’t bugs, followed by a bad PR “fixing” the “bug.” Or YOLOing an LLM PR to change major behavior that users are relying on. And I click and the authors are always brand new, with only vibe coded or examples proje…

Everything about this is exactly what is happening in OWASP repos.

Post by nemomarx » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 12:53 PM UTC

wojciii wrote: post #172

Citizen_Lame wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because they are not really contributors, so it doesn't apply.

Then they should exclude specific groups from their CoC. "You can't be a contributor if you're an Indian using AI". I don't think this is the way ..