just when the models started to be actually good. these policies need quarterly revisions at the current dynamics.
Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
101–110 of 419 posts
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#102Godot's new contribution policy: https://godotengine.org/article/contribution-policy-2026/
This is the link for the actual contribution policy: https://contributing.godotengine.org/en/latest/pull_requests...
But the blog post is written in future tense. I don't think they have a new contribution policy file yet
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#103Wouldn't it make much more sense to just reject _low_ quality PR's? On an unrelated note, I lost all respect and eagerness to try it out after the drama.
No, it wouldn't. The goal of reviewing PRs is to mentor and find new maintainers who will eventually replace the current ones.
You just can't expect someone who isn't willing enough to write one good PR to be willing to become a good maintainer.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#104There 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…
The reasons are functional in aggregate, but not necessarily per specific PR.
You could get a perfectly adequate instance of a PR that is easily readable and verifiable while generated by an LLM, but generally they're not.
A policy pushes the aggregate to at least what looks and communicates as a human made PR that is functionally easier to approve. Whether they are created by an LLM or not is then secondary, but it likely pushes all PRs to be better.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 d…
And on top of that - no matter if you develop open-source or proprietary software, who is to guarantee the AI didn't get trained with GPL (or even worse, leaked proprietary) source code? Who is going to pay my lawyer when someone files a copyright lawsuit and all I have as an excuse is that I "AI-laundered" my code? And some projects like WINE or ReactOS probably have to worry about that even more given they need to…
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's worth noting there were plenty of GPL violations before LLMs existed.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#106Do 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?
We are no longer in the era of FOSS where contributions are purely motivated by either scratching your own itch, altruism or curiosity. Haven't been for over a decade, since that's how long companies have been checking out applicants' GitHub pages during hiring. 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 gen…
Exactly. That’s the only real core issue. Wild AI usage is just a consequence.
Developers who have a nice job and career, and are making good money, might think of doing open source to “contribute to society” or something like that.
But new developers who are seeing those golden opportunities shut in front of their faces, they feel like they have to desperately fight for the last places on the lifeboat, so I don’t blame them for wanting to farm cv points and game the system of incompetent recruiters who make much more then they will do, instead of spending time and effort doing something nice for society hoping someone will notice (lol they will not, especially if you’re a nobody)
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#107Do 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?
We are no longer in the era of FOSS where contributions are purely motivated by either scratching your own itch, altruism or curiosity. Haven't been for over a decade, since that's how long companies have been checking out applicants' GitHub pages during hiring. 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 gen…
It's a sad state of affairs really. But I also think this high degree of slop everywhere will eventually shift what people and organizations deem valuable and how they scan or select for it, it's unsustainable otherwise. You're seeing it here already, and in other places as well.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#108Do 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?
There are degrees to "AI contributors". E.g. recently I have stumbled upon rare edge case in an OSS tool written in Rust. It would have taken me a week+ to be able to contribute a minor change in a clean and Rust-idiomatic way as this is not the language I'm proficient in, and Claude did that in 1 hour, with 3 or 4 rounds of tweaks from me to reduce the walls of text and make the contribution matching the of the original project. Alternative was just swiping it under the rug or opening an issue instead (thus placing the burden on the maintainer).
I do think I helped out.
And I have discovered this edge case when fiddling with my homelab which is my hobby.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
And on top of that - no matter if you develop open-source or proprietary software, who is to guarantee the AI didn't get trained with GPL (or even worse, leaked proprietary) source code? Who is going to pay my lawyer when someone files a copyright lawsuit and all I have as an excuse is that I "AI-laundered" my code? And some projects like WINE or ReactOS probably have to worry about that even more given they need to…
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's worth noting there were plenty of GPL violations before LLMs existed.
Sure, but at least when I write code by hand I can be fairly certain that I do not copy code without the appropriate license to do so.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#110Earlier 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".
It's their project, they can run it how they like. If they lose out on valid contributions that's their loss.
People are never entitled to their contributions getting accepted to someone else's code base.