331–340 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because a human authored contribution, no matter how bad, can be trained to make it good and also improves the community.
> can be trained to make it good and also improves the community. AI can be trained. Also, AI can create code that improves the community. It's replies like this that leave me even more confused.
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…
In my day job, I do a lot of AI coding but almost never have Claude actually create the PR titles or descriptions for me. It produces too much content, and the justification/background sections are often not quite right. Most PRs to me are not coming out of nowhere anyway, rather they're "here's the linked issue, I started out addressing it by doing X and Y, but then Y got hairy so I switched to Z, hope that makes se…
just when the models started to be actually good. these policies need quarterly revisions at the current dynamics.
Interesting 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.…
> almost all popular open source projects fight to keep AI contributions out Godot, Zig, who else? Most major OSS projects I know are openly welcoming high quality AI contributions, not fighting to keep them out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Still, your not even entitled to a discussion though.
These days large PRs are easy to create and so humans need to shut them down.
Is anyone using LLM on the other side, to vet incoming PRs for quality and whether it's worth reviewing?
I understand the struggle, but I feel like so many of these projects are going to ban AI contributions right before it starts getting undeniably better than humans.
Any day now! It's going to become sentient and send us into the future! Just long enough for the IPO!
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…
We just recently started that policy so we'll see how it goes. If anything, having it stated as policy lets us filter out these requests without spending brain tokens on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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."
What about "what goes up, must come down"?
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…