321–330 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is a policy necessary. you were never entitled to have your pr merged in the first place? If pr wasn't reviewable pre AI I'd expect it to be closed or ignored too
The policy isn't necessary to close the PR. The policy just helps to shut down the ensuing discussion after closing the PR. It helps in quickly dealing with well-meaning onlookers asking for clarification when you block PRs from the account.
For people that don't get it just check this: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/115280 https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/116410 For a project that already struggled with the ammount of PRs to review before AI era is not fair to mantainers to keep dealing with things like this. That's why the real big change in the policy is that new contributors can't take big features or refactors.
> This contribution is part of a university course project where we are required to make a real open-source contribution This university is very stupid university. Is there anyway to know which university is forcing these kids to spam open source project?
Telltale marks: authors with university emails in github profile, often coming in pairs, with no prior interaction with the project, often trying to add features nobody wanted. Not even a CONTRIBUTING.md read-through, usually.
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…
All these projects should seamlessly run a fork in parallel that accepts AI and has AI for review and approval. Both camps are happy. Basically a play sandbox for contributors to not get jaded. A honeypot to contain the verbosity vomit, while also serving as positive public relations by keeping young contributor morale from starting in the basement. Everyone has been that person once early in their life who is told t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think drugs are actually a great analogy. An initial feeling of "oh my god I have superhuman capabilities" followed by a hangover of "ohno I have created a mess". Especially with AI sycophancy where it's like "Great idea!" all the time. (I am well aware most my ideas are not great, thanks). Honestly, even the way people talk about like vibe coding on their phones while they're with their kids or something, it almos…
> An initial feeling of "oh my god I have superhuman capabilities" followed by a hangover of "ohno I have created a mess". Continuing the analogy: if this happens, then you are using the wrong drugs or you are using the drugs wrong. It's not like there's an axiom "you can't enhance your performance without detrimental side-effects."
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite accomplished, if it's creating text on the pull requests that looks sufficiently human-like, but you're still worried about the quality of the code and that the submitter doesn't understand it.
No different than a human written PR
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have consistently been proven right. The only thing failing has been the plateau claimers. If anything, it has improved much faster than the optimistic predictions.
Then fork Godot and accept all the PRs you guys want? No need to ruin existing software?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am struggling to understand the exact content of your message. I believe it's that Godot is unserious. Okay? Game engines serve a niche much smaller than broad consumer apps or SaaS platforms. Seems like a dunk I don't quite understand. It's a game built in Godot that runs on mobile (a mobile game). Godot is C++, there is no porting of engine to run on mobile? Slay the Spire 2 is built in Godot and has 500k concurr…
I interpreted your comment "Godot mobile app work" to mean you worked on porting Godot itself to mobile, which I then checked and found that it did actually happen https://godotengine.org/article/gabe-stable-release/ If Godot for Android is unrelated to you then I misread. But I still find it hilarious conceptually, unrelated to you, that Godot is spending resources on porting itself to phones while it has so many se…
There is a surprising number of projects dedicated to making Godot work on mobile, and I am equally confused by that focus. I guess it's more possible with AI coding though, but couch game dev doesn't feel like a real thing.