PS3 Emulator Devs Politely Ask That People Stop Flooding It with AI PRs

Post by kiba » Mon, May 11, 2026, 3:31 PM UTC

leidenfrost wrote: post #126

mvid wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If hammer companies were suddenly the most valuable international companies, and spent millions on ad campaigns and lobbying about trusting the hammer interface, then you can assume a large amount of people might trust the hammer interface

Still, it's a tool. Even if your tool learns to talk and to make decisions, it's still a tool, not a person. You're the person and the one responsible for the decisions you make based on your tools. Going back from the analogy, the problem is that we conflated software with "coders". A lot of people thought their job was to create code, we gave them a tool to generate a lot of code fast, and they truly think that "mo…

Post by potsandpans » Mon, May 11, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #75

sockbot wrote: post #48

The problem is really behavioural, not the tooling. People that do not understand, test and document their decision making in their PRs should not be submitting them, regardless of what tooling (AI or otherwise) they used to create them. This problem existed before AI, but it is now just worse due to the spamming nature of these "contributors". It's another form of endless September where people unfamiliar with the n…

No, it is a tooling problem. The tooling is telling laymen that they built wonderful things that definitely work and perfectly fix and add features. The tooling gasses them up and is simply wrong in these cases. If your tool regularly lies, gaslights and produces wrong results, that's a tooling issue.

Post by TheScaryOne » Mon, May 11, 2026, 4:38 PM UTC

leidenfrost wrote: post #126

mvid wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If hammer companies were suddenly the most valuable international companies, and spent millions on ad campaigns and lobbying about trusting the hammer interface, then you can assume a large amount of people might trust the hammer interface

Still, it's a tool. Even if your tool learns to talk and to make decisions, it's still a tool, not a person. You're the person and the one responsible for the decisions you make based on your tools. Going back from the analogy, the problem is that we conflated software with "coders". A lot of people thought their job was to create code, we gave them a tool to generate a lot of code fast, and they truly think that "mo…

Post by perching_aix » Mon, May 11, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

digitalPhonix wrote: post #144

perching_aix wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When their precision mismatches their accuracy (or your expectations as driven by their design), just like with any other metrology tool. Now you might say: "but the datasheet will give you the tolerances, and the manual will tell you to mind it!" And yes, that's true. Just like how LLM providers also do: they tell you that outputs may be arbitrarily wrong , and that you should always check for mistakes. Is this bull…

That's the difference - they have well defined and bounded errors. LLMs do not.

Post by ASalazarMX » Mon, May 11, 2026, 6:02 PM UTC

emsign wrote: post #78

sockbot wrote: post #48

The problem is really behavioural, not the tooling. People that do not understand, test and document their decision making in their PRs should not be submitting them, regardless of what tooling (AI or otherwise) they used to create them. This problem existed before AI, but it is now just worse due to the spamming nature of these "contributors". It's another form of endless September where people unfamiliar with the n…

Nope. If the tooling is fooling then the tooling IS the problem.