31–40 of 94 posts
> People must be vouched for before interacting with certain parts of a project (the exact parts are configurable to the project to enforce).
https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch
I think many projects will adopt this instead of allowing everyone / blocking everyone
Many projects have "ai slop" check in place to directly close and ban user if it is "ai slop". Else, it will be hard to handle the velocity of PRs
On a general note, I like vouch by mitchellh. > People must be vouched for before interacting with certain parts of a project (the exact parts are configurable to the project to enforce). https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch I think many projects will adopt this instead of allowing everyone / blocking everyone Many projects have "ai slop" check in place to directly close and ban user if it is "ai slop". Else, it will b…
I don't know if having your name/ face a secret is still acceptable? Maybe tiers of devs (anon vs other) on that one?
Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely. Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.
Here are the actual policies, not a comment: https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol... It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: > The following are allowed. > Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase. > Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC... Like serio…
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? I would have LOVED if the university course I took last winter had this. I had to take a very paranoid attitude to what was allowed. What they're trying to avoid is a lot of unnecessary conflict with zealous anti-AI people calling for your exclusion for admitting to doing these things. There are people who would ban this too.
Here are the actual policies, not a comment: https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol... It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: > The following are allowed. > Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase. > Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC... Like serio…
[flagged]
edit: Wow people did not read the policy. It's literally just "if you use an LLM you are responsible for it, we will reject low quality PRs, please disclose that you have used an LLM". This is bog standard.
Here are the actual policies, not a comment: https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol... It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: > The following are allowed. > Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase. > Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC... Like serio…
This is not very different from the Linux kernel's policy so it's an odd comparison. It's actually almost identical in practical terms.
edit: lol proof that this doc needs to be stupidly explicit is in the pudding with the HN comments going out of their way to radically misread it