Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changing how we develop Ladybird

ladybird.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#221

Post by helloplanets »

Fraterkes wrote: post #66

I've been looking a lot at Godot (another big open source project) PRs lately, and there's been kind of a surge of wholy ai-generated PRs (both code and description). This is agains project-policy, so people creating these PRs usually get mildly told off. What's surprising is that while many submitters take that fairly well, some people get really indignant, essentially calling the maintainers ungrateful. It's kinda…

If a project has a rule to not submit AI generated PRs, people should never submit AI generated PRs to that project. It's spam. Or if the rule is more nuanced than that in relation to AI, it should be respected.

It's 100% an issue with the people with submitting these PRs. So, if someone has a history of having no issue with breaking project rules (let alone being arrogant about it), it should be a massive red flag about the person for any possible employer or future collaborator checking their profile, etc.

Why people are wilfully destroying their own reputation like that is beyond me. It's infinitely better to have no activity at all on your profile than to create a track record of bad behaviour.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#223

Post by BrissyCoder »

patates wrote: post #131

When AI first happened, I was afraid I was going to eventually lose my job. And while I've been lucky since, many did, and that hurt a lot. When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans, or at least hope that society keeps being fair to those who are most affected. Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the co…

[flagged]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#225

Post by conradludgate »

TekMol wrote: post #196

For an open source project, is there any reason to still accept code contributions? Feature requests are valuable because they tell you what users want. Error reports are valuable because they tell you under which circumstances the code fails. But the code that implements those features and fixes those errors can now be written by AI. AI follows all the rules for how code is supposed to be written in your project. Is…

It was alluded to in the post - contributors turn into maintainers. Someone who contributes has a small but plausible chance of sticking around.

For an open source project that isn't a business, that's really the only way to recruit people

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#226

Post by jeremyjh »

nh2 wrote: post #63

> There will not be a [..] process for submitting patches by [any] means > Outside involvement still matters: clear bug reports So I can find a bug, I can fix it, but I am not allowed to tell them how exactly I did it. Instead they have to re-figure it out. The team must be thrilled to re-do work they know was already put in by others, repeatedly. As a user-and-eveloper, why would I sink time into a project with such…

> Nobody should need to know anything about any person submitting a pull request. Hopefully whether code that makes it into Firefox or Chromium was never based on the "effort" or "faith" of the submitter, but based on the correctness of the code in review. Reviewing code fixes is strictly easier than coming up with them yourself.

You state these things as if they are facts, but they are completely contrary to the lived experience of open source maintainers - not only my own and the TFA's but quite a large number of others who have shared similar pieces.

Would you mind sharing a link to one of the open source project you've been maintaining and reviewing contributions on for years that forms the basis of your expertise on this matter?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#227

Post by lucasban »

BrissyCoder wrote: post #223
patates wrote: post #131

When AI first happened, I was afraid I was going to eventually lose my job. And while I've been lucky since, many did, and that hurt a lot. When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans, or at least hope that society keeps being fair to those who are most affected. Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the co…

[flagged]

Why do you care if they want to put stickers on their laptop? It’s not my taste, either, but it’s subjective.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#228

Post by robryan »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #218
hypfer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the code contributions, but also massively impact the other, non-tangible contributions like ideas, eyes on code, etc. That feels way worse. These "contributions", while they did exist in small quantities, mostly were not actually what you've described there. Instead, those boiled down to unsolicited opinions, hostile takeover attempts, valu…

It always seemed like a weird default to let people (esp strangers) submit PRs that weren't tied to an issue nor approved. What do you mean you just spent a week implementing something in secret? AI makes it extra silly because now you can craft up your unsolicited code change in minutes, making it extra obvious that code changes should spawn from real discussion and agreement. TFA is part of looking for new processe…

I think it was different pre-AI. Someone might come in and spend days getting some understanding of the codebase before they contribute some minor fix. Over time they might stick around a make some more of these, progressively gaining trust so when they do take on something bigger the maintainers will know they aren't wasting their time reviewing it.

Now they can drop a multi thousand line poorly understood PR day 1.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#229

Post by embedding-shape »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #210
embedding-shape wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I don't think there is any universal truths here, no correct nor incorrect answers, it's all very subjective. For example, I'm conflicted about the thing as a whole, but also I wouldn't say "Usage of generative AI for sure leads society to a worse place" like you just implied, that's too absolute for me and not something I'd agree with, and it wouldn't resolve the conflicts we're talking about here. Maybe your…

> that's not the situation nor the feeling everywhere in the world, certainly not where I live Do you expect your government to navigate whatever transition might await us in a manner that works out well for the vast majority of your countrymen? What about the governments of other major world powers? Even if your local government does all the right things, will the world as a whole end up in a good place? That said,…

> Do you expect your government to navigate whatever transition might await us in a manner that works out well for the vast majority of your countrymen?

No, but I expect them to do the best they can, with the information they have available, as always, as they just like me, are just humans. Trusting the legislative branch of my government is different from "so you think it'll work out well for everyone then huh?", btw.

> What about the governments of other major world powers?

Why does it matter how much I trust the legislative branch from other countries? They do as they wish, we continue to do as we wish.

> Even if your local government does all the right things, will the world as a whole end up in a good place?

My experience and opinion is that generally the world is getting better almost every day, vast difference even compared to ten years ago, how much better the world is today, for most people. There are some few countries which lately been going in the wrong direction, but for the most part, we (humanity) are getting incrementally better.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#230

Post by TekMol »

conradludgate wrote: post #225
TekMol wrote: post #196

For an open source project, is there any reason to still accept code contributions? Feature requests are valuable because they tell you what users want. Error reports are valuable because they tell you under which circumstances the code fails. But the code that implements those features and fixes those errors can now be written by AI. AI follows all the rules for how code is supposed to be written in your project. Is…

It was alluded to in the post - contributors turn into maintainers. Someone who contributes has a small but plausible chance of sticking around. For an open source project that isn't a business, that's really the only way to recruit people

But why recruit people, now that we have AI?

Couldn't an agent monitor feature requests and bug reports, reason about them, and then implement and fix the ones it deems important?

Post reply on HN