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

Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 419 posts

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#21

Post by mobiuscog »

preisschild wrote: post #15
superb_dev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your contributions are genuinely indistinguishable from AI code, then this shouldn’t affect you. There would be no way to enforce it

There is legally. Make sure they sign the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin). They will fail at the first paragraph (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; [...] https://developercertificate.org/

I guess that means no IDEs doing refactoring or automating common code. Not linters altering code, etc... right ? Because that's the same thing.

How about if AI generates code in a file, then I copy/paste bits... like stack overflow ?

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#22

Post by shevy-java »

In many ways this makes sense. I noticed other projects struggle with this as well. AI slop spam kills time available.

On the other hand ... it is a bit strange though, because what if code contributions objectively improve something? I dislike AI slop spam, but from a purely objective point of view, I am not sure it should be forbidden based on it intrinsically making a change, which COULD be an improve. Now I am also aware of the AI slop spam worsening things; ton of documentation is useless, look at what matz produces with claude, this seems to be written purely by an alien, aka AI. I don't understand anything that this AI generates. But I think from an objective point of view, I'd actually lean more towards not completely disallowing AI slop contribution. The issue seems largely with:

a) the quality

b) the amount of text generated

Both these problems, in my opinion, could be solved. The time required by a real human to look at it, though, will always be a bottleneck, so perhaps the more honest answer would be that humans don't have enough time for contributions from skynet.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#23

Post by sixtyj »

TomasBM wrote: post #7

It's a fair policy. Getting those verbose, AI-authored walls of text is very annoying, especially when you're expected to thoroughly review it. It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind. I can only imagine how frustrating this can get in open projects that get a lot of contributions. However, I don't think this will discourage AI-based coding at all. In fact, I see two potential outcomes of these policie…

[flagged]

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#24

Post by voidUpdate »

TomasBM wrote: post #18
manvel_hn wrote: post #3

There are some curated lists of no-AI software. Would be nice to have an index / plot of how that changes in time. https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html

Interesting initiative. What are the guiding reasons behind these lists? I can't think of a functional reason for a no-AI policy: if it runs, it runs, regardless of who or what made it. Also, even if you avoid AI-generated slop, you can't really avoid the human-generated or human+AI-generated slop that passes your filters. Still, I can definitely think of good non-functional reasons: provenance, accountability, proof…

I think the main functional reason is that because a human hasn't written the code, its potentially more likely to have subtle hidden bugs that a human cant explain because they didn't write it, as well as large pull requests that have to be validated by a human when smaller human written ones would be better. But I think it's generally the non-functional reasons that projects are rejecting LLM-generated code. Some developers just find LLM generated code icky, and would prefer not to be associated with it

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#25

Post by kkapelon »

TekMol wrote: post #4

Why base the decision on what tools are used by the author and not on the quality of their past contributions?

Because of lot of AI PRs come from first time contributors who just discovered the tools. Maybe their PR is amazing, maybe it is trash. You never know until you review it.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#26

Post by onesandofgrain »

TomasBM wrote: post #7

It's a fair policy. Getting those verbose, AI-authored walls of text is very annoying, especially when you're expected to thoroughly review it. It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind. I can only imagine how frustrating this can get in open projects that get a lot of contributions. However, I don't think this will discourage AI-based coding at all. In fact, I see two potential outcomes of these policie…

The whole point of not-accepting AI authored code is because this line is not respected=>"Submitters actually provide to-the-point, no-bullshit commits and comments". You're putting way too much faith into the human minds ability to resist clout-chasing. AI isn't able to humanize code without human supervision.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#27

Post by Forgeties79 »

TomasBM wrote: post #18
manvel_hn wrote: post #3

There are some curated lists of no-AI software. Would be nice to have an index / plot of how that changes in time. https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html

Interesting initiative. What are the guiding reasons behind these lists? I can't think of a functional reason for a no-AI policy: if it runs, it runs, regardless of who or what made it. Also, even if you avoid AI-generated slop, you can't really avoid the human-generated or human+AI-generated slop that passes your filters. Still, I can definitely think of good non-functional reasons: provenance, accountability, proof…

> Still, I can definitely think of good non-functional reasons

For many people that’s enough of a reason.

As for functional, you can see it all up and down this comment thread. People don’t check their work and leave these massive walls of text and codebases that someone else has to audit/cleanup. It’s exhausting. Too many people offload their work to AI and put zero effort into vetting the results, which punctually means they are just offloading the work downstream. So many maintainers are simply going “no I will not do your work for you,” which is a very functional decision.

To butcher a comment I read on HN that put it very succinctly months ago: everybody wants to let AI do their work for them, but nobody wants to be downstream of AI work. It’s a seriously problematic dynamic on many levels. And that dynamic will not change until the vast majority of people start reliably vetting the results, which I don’t think is going to happen because babysitting a black box and trying to force it to output something a specific way (or constantly copy editing middling work) is not something that most of us enjoy.

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#28

Post by 0xMalotru »

TomasBM wrote: post #18
manvel_hn wrote: post #3

There are some curated lists of no-AI software. Would be nice to have an index / plot of how that changes in time. https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html

Interesting initiative. What are the guiding reasons behind these lists? I can't think of a functional reason for a no-AI policy: if it runs, it runs, regardless of who or what made it. Also, even if you avoid AI-generated slop, you can't really avoid the human-generated or human+AI-generated slop that passes your filters. Still, I can definitely think of good non-functional reasons: provenance, accountability, proof…

There is a "why" a the end of the list

https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index#why-care-a...

Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions

#29

Post by nasso_dev »

TomasBM wrote: post #18
manvel_hn wrote: post #3

There are some curated lists of no-AI software. Would be nice to have an index / plot of how that changes in time. https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html

Interesting initiative. What are the guiding reasons behind these lists? I can't think of a functional reason for a no-AI policy: if it runs, it runs, regardless of who or what made it. Also, even if you avoid AI-generated slop, you can't really avoid the human-generated or human+AI-generated slop that passes your filters. Still, I can definitely think of good non-functional reasons: provenance, accountability, proof…

or, maybe, as a form of protest? many people are actively against AI for ethical/moral/personal reasons, so they want to avoid using software made with it

you can see it sort of like making a list of vegan restaurants. you might not see anything wrong with other restaurants (they might even have vegan dishes) but to some people it makes all the difference because they get to choose who they support

Post reply on HN