[dead]
Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
141–150 of 419 posts
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#142Interesting that on one hand the valuation of these AI providers is based on the assumption that all code (and everything else producing digital artefacts) will be written using AI in the near future, on the other hand almost all popular open source projects fight to keep AI contributions out. Hard to reconcile. Personally I'm also experiencing a bit of AI hangover after using it a lot in my own open-source projects.…
the assumption that all code (and everything else producing digital artefacts) will be written using AI in the near future,
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#143Godot is one of the worst run open source projects with a crawling pace since 2014.
I bet you work on AI.. or invested in it... or you are sam.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#144Wouldn'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.
They want people who will be around to maintain the features as well. There have been several areas of the project that have languished at times because no current maintainer had the capacity or familiarity to move it forward. Also, what drama?
I get that, but again this seems like a quality problem. As for commitment a simple sorting algorithm which prioritizes repeat contributors should solve that.
Google Godot drama 2024, for some top-notch community mismanagement classes.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#145just when the models started to be actually good. these policies need quarterly revisions at the current dynamics.
Assuming you're referring to the policies elsewhere that are overly permissive of model-generated code ;)
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - 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…
> 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. True. At least with a policy about it, the project maintainers can unilaterally close such PRs without further internal or external discussion on any case-by-case basis.
Dingdingding, we have a winner. The main use of such a policy is to be able to just close those giant wall-of-text PRs and have something to point to when people start to scream it's not fair.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#147[flagged]
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#148There 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
I made a filter that shows github repos posted to hacker news that do not have evidence of AI authorship:
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
But now with AI, this should be "easier" for some definition of easy. In the sense that in the past, this might have taken 15 minutes to write, now with AI, this can take 5 minutes to write by first getting AI to produce a summary and then using human judgement to make it better. So, it's a good idea now to actually demand the dream.
If people knew how to get AI to write terse, focused summaries, sure, that might help. I haven't seen many that do (well, ignoring the toupee fallacy). Though the most important aspect is that we need to know the motivation and thought process, and all AI can do is fabricate a 'plausible' one.
Reading AI PRs reminds me of Monty Python's holy grenade:
"And the Lord spake, saying, ''First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#150just when the models started to be actually good. these policies need quarterly revisions at the current dynamics.
Assuming you're referring to the policies elsewhere that are overly permissive of model-generated code ;)
I'm referring to any policy actually; it cuts both ways. I'd actually suggest a per-model policy - e.g. personally I'd have much less doubts accepting Fable/Mythos patches than Sonnet ones. this is obviously unworkable, impossible to validate and excludes mixed-model workflows, but in spirit the 'smart' models/model mixes should be treated differently than the dumb ones. another case is one-liner (approximately) fixes - I wouldn't even bother to self-report these as AI generated.