Godot is one of the worst run open source projects with a crawling pace since 2014.
strong disagree, as a user the recent updates have been awesome and immediately useful.
Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
211–220 of 419 posts
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Good point. Even if you submit small, verifiable and readable changes, you can still overload the review process by submitting too many of them (e.g., 100s of PRs). But I'd argue that some projects [1] could benefit from the speed (and sometimes, quality) of AI code generation without filtering by something that's difficult to identify (i.e., is it truly human-generated). One way could be to constrain the size of eac…
I agree, both in theory and that it's easier said than done, but I don't necessarily think that education is a primary reason, but merely a long term prerequisite of the project surviving.
I'm sure some are convinced LLMs can (eventually) manage everything, and others (I'm leaning more here) are convinced that you will always need a minimum amount of people both educated in the fundamentals and the domain to steer the project, and these people wont exist down the path of non-human PRs.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#213It'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…
> I personally wouldn't care if it was AI-generated or not, as long as the content fit the latter category. It's pragmatic. Linus once said, the reason C++ is not allowed in the kernel is to keep the C++ people out.
Joke's on him, many Rust people are current or former C++ people.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Efficiency is the key. I haven’t written any issue before so LLM was much quicker than manual experiment. I have personally checked the result before submission. So why the hate? :)
You "personally checked" the result (generated by an LLM, a huge black box with extensive knowledge of all fields) to the best of your knowledge. There is a mismatch between what the machine knows (and has done as the result of it) and what you think you know. Implementing a fix implies knowledge of the inner workings that brought you to it. A fix made by a LLM does not give you that.
Why do I argue here anyway? :)
Before sending it I have tried the patch locally. It worked.
So I sent the proposal. And it was accepted by the author.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#215It'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…
How strict is this no AI policy?
Say AI is used to identify and rewrite a single function that improves performance or fixes a bug, then the developer carefully reviews and tests it and submits a nice tight PR with all human communication.
So they don’t want that? They would just reject it?
If I’m understanding correctly, under the policy the higher performance function / bug free submission would be rejected and they could ask for a rewrite.
Should it then be rewritten from scratch, and clean room engineered so it doesn’t resemble the AI too much?
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I found is something to do with Discord. Been using Godot for years I have no idea what drama you’re talking about.
As far as I can remember. There was a pro LGBT tweet that some people didn't like. And the moderator decided to blanket ban everyone who disagreed with the tweet. Some of the banned people had reasonable objections like: regardless if they agree with something or not politics and OS should be separated, and were still banned, including on GitHub. Others had objections also shared with the Godot founder and were still…
LGBT people aren’t “politics”.
Though I guess if your stance is “these people should have less rights” then it is politics, but in that case I don’t see the drama for banning people.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#217It'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…
> I personally wouldn't care if it was AI-generated or not, as long as the content fit the latter category. The problem is that a lot of AI contributions are lazily produced without review. Those that have been properly reviewed for correctness (tested to ensure actually working with no obvious undesirable side effects, tweaked where needed to be readable and understandable, fitting the other guidelines of the projec…
> The problem is that a lot of AI contributions are lazily produced without review.
That sounds like a contributor problem. Not an AI problem.
I still don't understand a "no AI" policy whose only purpose is to weed out bad PRs. You should be weeding out bad PR's regardless of their source. I don't see why treating a purely human-authored, but bad, piece of code should be treated any differently than an AI-authored one.
All they've accomplished is creaking an environment where good code can't be submitted unless the submitter lies.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#218Interesting 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.…
I have recently updated zed to the latest version which has parallel agents and all the other brainrot.
I gave it an innocuous 2 sentence prompt, telling it to help me implement it, by building X first.
It produced code, and it was a big wall of code, which I expected. What I didn't expect is that the zed developers completely threw out the accept/reject workflow since Codex is no longer directly integrated into zed anymore.
Instead of the agent patiently waiting for my acceptance, it just kept going, it automatically ran cargo test, kept iterating like a dozen times, running cargo test and editing the code. Since I was in the middle of a big refactor, I kept a dozen compile errors as a reminder. It tried to "fix" these compile errors.
Then it proceeded to keep going even further and use the code to finish a file that was supposed to use the new code in the future.
The end result is as expected: It produced completely unusable garbage code that no sane person would sign off on and not just that, it used this garbage code and kept going with it, building more garbage on top of a garbage foundation. It also silenced the errors by producing more garbage code.
I'm the type of person that thinks the "accept always" button for specific commands is the dumbest idea ever [0], but they went one step further and basically made the agentic coding experience so bad it became unusable overnight. At this point I'd rather abandon agentic coding and go back to copy paste development with a chat interface.
[0] it's either accept or reject, everything else is stupid
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was the original rule in linux kernel as well. No more than 200 loc per patch. We should also introduce this to git commits and pull request descriptions: 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
Seems like this policy would apply pretty well regardless of who/what generated the code.
YES! "No AI" policies that are purely based on technical grounds make no sense to me. Bad PR's are bad PR's regardless of their source.
Are we really in a situation where good code that solves a problem won't be merged because the person the person checked the "I used AI" box on the PR?
Ban PR's that are too big, don't have a clear purpose, touch too many areas, etc.
Re: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributions
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can remember. There was a pro LGBT tweet that some people didn't like. And the moderator decided to blanket ban everyone who disagreed with the tweet. Some of the banned people had reasonable objections like: regardless if they agree with something or not politics and OS should be separated, and were still banned, including on GitHub. Others had objections also shared with the Godot founder and were still…
LGBT people aren’t “politics”. Though I guess if your stance is “these people should have less rights” then it is politics, but in that case I don’t see the drama for banning people.
Of course it's politics, you have billions of people thinking otherwise than what is accepted in the west.
This doesn't mean I agree with them, but pretending this isn't a complex and very large issue with multiple facets is just wrong.