111–120 of 162 posts
These maintainer who’ve held the sacred fire for years…
These idea guys who longed for the fire for years- and still don't have it.. full of envy..
Ironically this seems like a perfect use for AI from the maintaner side. "Find low-effort/AI-like PR's without associated issues from new contributors. Discuss with the contributors in the PR about how contributions should be made, then reject their PR's. If any bad behavior is detected in this interaction, block the accounts for 24 hours and add them to a list of accounts to review for permanent banning from the pro…
As a contributor who had to deal with 2 automated reviews in the past month, it's a bad experience. I really wanted to upstream my changes, but these bots made me question if i should at all. Bots don't understand how their words can hurt people's feelings, and can even less understand that talking to a LLM is even more sad/infuriating for actual humans. I can handle CI/tests just fine, but LLMs playing on my human e…
If I get a review at work from a bot that is annoying, misunderstands, etc I just ignore their reviews, or tell the bot to leave me alone. The bot is there to help me, and if it doesn't - that's not my problem. There's also always a human reviewer. For any automated feedback for PR's I think there should be "manual review" requests. If you disagree and the bot can decide that there is real human effort involved, then just let real humans also make the effort to review.
This is the key idea: to spend the human effort from maintainers, where there has been human effort from contributors. The AI should be able to determine the amount of human effort in a contribution. The bot should be an aid to make sure the human maintainer effort is spent only where there is human contributor effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a statistically significant correlation between comments on HN not getting the point and a GitHub user existing under the same moniker with a default pfp and no content.
What are you talking about? My GH profile is not my HN name. If you don’t have a valid point why post rubbish?
Reading the tea leaves, this initially said NH instead of HN, which might be a typo, but might also be "hacker news" but in the native language. Which would possibly line up with commit messages.
Anyway, low trust internet is here. Enjoy
IMHO, the days when open source contributions are often positive signal for hiring are long gone. Actually, if I see someone doing open source like it's a performative career checkbox, that will not be positive signal, and could easily be negative. I understand that people will do what they need to do to get a job, but that pragmatic career checkboxing itself isn't positive. I will have to look for positive signal el…
Reminds me of this xkcd: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2899:_Goodhart%27...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a contributor who had to deal with 2 automated reviews in the past month, it's a bad experience. I really wanted to upstream my changes, but these bots made me question if i should at all. Bots don't understand how their words can hurt people's feelings, and can even less understand that talking to a LLM is even more sad/infuriating for actual humans. I can handle CI/tests just fine, but LLMs playing on my human e…
I haven't been exposed AI reviews in OSS but I like them for work. Quality of PR review feedback is the most revolutionary bit of AI I think. More so than automated coding. I guess one issue with the AI reviews in OSS is that your dialog (I assume) is public. You know the interaction is with a bot but you also sense it may be observed by humans. If I get a review at work from a bot that is annoying, misunderstands, e…
If the maintainer wants a LLM to review my PRs, let the maintainer use a LLM. Don't make me deal with abrasive chatbots when you want to deal with abrasive chatbots. I don't want an LLM to pre-screen my work to decide if a human should review it; a human should decide if my contribution is worth it. Otherwise, that project is not worthy of my modest contribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about? My GH profile is not my HN name. If you don’t have a valid point why post rubbish?
I think everything is said here already, but there's still yet another interesting detail worth mentioning. Reading the tea leaves, this initially said NH instead of HN, which might be a typo, but might also be "hacker news" but in the native language. Which would possibly line up with commit messages. Anyway, low trust internet is here. Enjoy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could it take less effort to maintain a fork? You have to merge the upstream in every week and fight endlessly on conflicts with your patches.
Originally, yes. Nowadays, it's trivial. Agents can handle this flawlessly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't been exposed AI reviews in OSS but I like them for work. Quality of PR review feedback is the most revolutionary bit of AI I think. More so than automated coding. I guess one issue with the AI reviews in OSS is that your dialog (I assume) is public. You know the interaction is with a bot but you also sense it may be observed by humans. If I get a review at work from a bot that is annoying, misunderstands, e…
So i'm critical of LLMs even if you consent to their use (for ecological/political/cognitive reasons). But in that case at least it's your tool and your expectations. I'm not even sure the maintainers had a say in the random LLM interactions i had on their projects, but i certainly didn't consent. If the maintainer wants a LLM to review my PRs, let the maintainer use a LLM. Don't make me deal with abrasive chatbots w…
But that's the problem at hand: if there are 999 low-effort automated AI contributions for every human contribution, either all 1000 contributions must be pre-screened to gauge "human effort" and the human efforts get human review, or all PR's get 1/1000 the human attention.
Ironically this seems like a perfect use for AI from the maintaner side. "Find low-effort/AI-like PR's without associated issues from new contributors. Discuss with the contributors in the PR about how contributions should be made, then reject their PR's. If any bad behavior is detected in this interaction, block the accounts for 24 hours and add them to a list of accounts to review for permanent banning from the pro…
As a contributor who had to deal with 2 automated reviews in the past month, it's a bad experience. I really wanted to upstream my changes, but these bots made me question if i should at all. Bots don't understand how their words can hurt people's feelings, and can even less understand that talking to a LLM is even more sad/infuriating for actual humans. I can handle CI/tests just fine, but LLMs playing on my human e…
That's a super weird way of putting it, which makes me hesitate to agree with you.
buuuut I agree that the LLM bot review experience is usually miserable, as the persona these things use is insufferable. It's a know-it-all only-speaks-in-imperatives thing, where the speaker lacks the actual merit that would grant them the right to that style.
LLMs can be very useful for code review, but the existing product implementations took a bit too many pages out of Kafka's works and are a bit too real in simulating a dysfunctional bureaucratic org.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scale matters. If people do it, it's maybe 10 PRs like that per month. With AI there could be hundreds per day.
Then that AI is fixing hundreds of typos a day, seems like win.