71–80 of 419 posts
Godot is one of the worst run open source projects with a crawling pace since 2014.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How they enforce it in every other project with the same policy, if the reviewer/maintainer suspects the pr is ai slope he closes it. That's it, it works fantastically well, I do the same even in my job
"suspects".... that sounds error prone. And I read it like "we don't want AI generated stuff unless we can't tell the difference".
While I agree with the general message, and wish it will eventually radiate to cooperations as well, it is obviously a decision driven by feelings, not logic. The idea that you can't trust code that was generated by heavy users of AI, because _they_ don't understand it enough to fix it, is false, because they can use AI to fix it. In general, I have hard time understanding how one might even block other contributors…
Do those AI contributors really think they are helping out? Don't they get, that they are destroying such projects with their "work"? Why do they spend money for stuff nobody wants and gets rejected. I don't get it... Don't these people have any hobbies? Or are these free-roaming OpenClaw instances that have been forgotten by their creator and are now doing their own thing?
These people are farming contributions to major FOSS projects as a form of CV-padding. The same is happening with vulnerability reports. The sloppers may genuinely think they're helping out, or they may know their 'contributions' are a net negative for the projects, in the end it doesn't matter much. When you're motivated by direct economical incentives and your situation is precarious enough (in today's labor market, it is), externalities are not high on your list of concerns.
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…
1. 400 chars/10 lines per commit
1b. Not more than 3 commits in the initial pull request
2. 20 lines of explanation for pull request
3. not more than 3 pull request open at any one time
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…
> It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind. I think this may be an example of deliberate hostile design, attempting to force users to adopt LLM based solutions to then summarise the vast output. Pushing back against AI contributions as such in this context makes sense, especially in software with an existing proven track record of great value delivery like Godot.
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…
> - Negative: Submitters just add stylistic markers to make their accounts and output seem human-generated. This is like syntactic sugar: the core content and the size of contributions stay the same, but the style gets quirkier. From my experience reviewing, most contributors never read the policies, especially those making a "quick AI PR". I don't expect the new policy to change this much. > Positive: Submitters act…
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/
Just put it behind a paywall for PR prioritization or consideration, more payment to jump the queue. There, I solved FOSS sponsorship.