Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

neilalexander.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 162 posts

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#21

Post by hypfer »

smooc wrote: post #20

So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited. Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?

The whole idea of "counting PRs" as a vanity metric is flawed because vanity metrics are flawed.

I don't think that there is a technical solution to be found here, as the problem is anything but technical.

__

A hack/trap:

Comment "Ah yes thanks a lot for the hint :)", then make the changes yourself.

Then see how the person reacts to that.

Hack the grifters. Hack the planet.

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#23

Post by Barrin92 »

hsn915 wrote: post #6

This is weird though. Obviously the best way to use AI to furnish your CV is to build your own project using AI.

that won't work because all those millions of 'projects' are unmaintainable vaporware which is exactly why people try to piggyback on the reputation of software that is actually being used and developed by people

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#25

Post by latentsea »

esafak wrote: post #19
latentsea wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I wonder if LLMs can tell when you're taking the mickey out of them. Has anybody tried imitating its mannerisms and had it react? There's a new benchmark for you: SelfAwareness!

See exhibit A:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1vrlrud/gaslighti...

So funny. And yes, we should 100% find a way to turn this into a benchmark.

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#26

Post by Arainach »

smooc wrote: post #20

So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited. Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?

Change is bad unless it's great.

Unless the change is an obvious improvement, it has to be worth the time for the maintainers to spend attention reviewing it (and supporting the code forever, and all the rest).

Even if these particular changes are "harmless" and easy to review, accepting them sets a precedent that encourages an unsustainable flood of AI-generated changes that will overwhelm the project.

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#27

Post by flyingshelf »

hypfer wrote: post #21
smooc wrote: post #20

So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited. Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?

The whole idea of "counting PRs" as a vanity metric is flawed because vanity metrics are flawed. I don't think that there is a technical solution to be found here, as the problem is anything but technical. __ A hack/trap: Comment "Ah yes thanks a lot for the hint :)", then make the changes yourself. Then see how the person reacts to that. Hack the grifters. Hack the planet.

My solution is to ask them for proof of work. Many of these disappear after opening a PR that they never tested. How can you claim to have fixed a visual issue without a screenshot? Insta-close.

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#28

Post by bwhiting2356 »

smooc wrote: post #20

So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited. Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?

Why not let them have the status boost? This isn't zero sum.

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#29

Post by __david__ »

hypfer wrote: post #21
smooc wrote: post #20

So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited. Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?

The whole idea of "counting PRs" as a vanity metric is flawed because vanity metrics are flawed. I don't think that there is a technical solution to be found here, as the problem is anything but technical. __ A hack/trap: Comment "Ah yes thanks a lot for the hint :)", then make the changes yourself. Then see how the person reacts to that. Hack the grifters. Hack the planet.

Or just pull the pr into your local git, git amend --reset-author, and then push it to master yourself.

Re: Please stop flooding our projects with AI slop to furnish your CV

#30

Post by hypfer »

bwhiting2356 wrote: post #28
smooc wrote: post #20

So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited. Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?

Why not let them have the status boost? This isn't zero sum.

> This isn't zero sum.

True, it is actually negative sum, because fake merit erodes trust in real merit, as it makes it a lot harder to spot the latter.

Post reply on HN