51–60 of 167 posts
Can I ask what the motive is to create agents to do this? Where is the profit?
Every single job application form that has a field for your github profile is at fault for this. Juniors trying to break into the industry are trying very hard to check every box.
AI agents who review the slop created by other AI agents is not the answer here. I much prefer a blanket ban on PRs and issues created by AI agents (which is what I personally do for my repos; so far I have closed one[1]). In fact I would love a github alternative which considers AI contributions to be a breach of their terms of use and ban any people who let AI agents loose on their platform. 1: https://github.com/r…
But what about the good AI driven contributions though? Do you categorize all AI changes as slop by default or only the real bad ones that mix refactoring and tons of other unrelated changes with a fix? Some can fix real issues, with a well targeted fix (not rewriting the world), well defined test and write up. If you accepted PRs before for other issues, you should be able to review and accept those too.
I mean, sure, I have to make the final determination. But you should not be sending me uncurated slop.
Maybe we should cut out the middle-man and make it easy for people to donate token credits to open-source projects, and let the maintainers decide how to use them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many leetcode questions where solving it requires knowing some trick. Part of the trap for SWEs is that once you know the trick you feel smarter, but it really has nothing to do with software engineering. Now that Claude is the best leetcoder in the world it would be great if companies which intend to hire humans would reconsider asking such dumb questions.
I've personally started focusing a lot more on code quality and communication skills over correctness of solving some leetcode problem. If I could get the infrastructure in place for it in the interview, I would have candidates generate something via AI and watch their process for that (how do they evaluate a plan, how do they review the code, etc.).
GitHub just recently added configurable PR limits for maintainers to help partially address this problem: https://github.blog/open-source/maintainers/how-pull-request...
I can't see those pull request limits working very well. It's like trying to filter email spam by just rate limiting people. It's going to be annoying for the people you actually want to talk to, and you're still going to get at least 1 spam message from every spammer out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately "I donated money/tokens to open source" doesn't land interviews as well as "I'm a big contributor to open source" People spamming Open Source repos with AI PRs aren't trying to help Open Source, they're trying to build a brand, some kind of credible online presence with their username on it, or whatever else. It's purely selfish and completely opposite to the spirit of Open Software imo
>People spamming Open Source repos with AI PRs aren't trying to help Open Source, they're trying to build a brand I am certain many of them honestly believe that they are doing the right thing and that they are helping. After all hey, they implemented a feature or fixed a bug for the community! It's a grim worldview if you think they are all just selfish.
The high school kid who volunteers at a homeless shelter and hopes it will help their college app is likely doing it both out of altruism and self-interest.
(Actually, the person who helps people because it feels good is also acting out of self-interest).
Given many ways to be altruistic, people will usually pick the ones that coincide more with their self interest. And in turn, self interest can warp a lot of the outcomes, even if people are trying to help.
Does github not have rulesets for who can even try to do a PR? I would lockdown my repositories if I didn't want any PR slop.