"Pull requests created by AI must have been fully verified with human use." should always be a bare minimum requirement.
AI Usage Policy
11–20 of 293 posts
Re: AI Usage Policy
#12Ultimately what's happening here is AI is undermining trust in remote contributions, and in new code. If you don't know somebody personally, and know how they work, the trust barrier is getting higher. I personally am already ultra vigilant for any github repo that is not already well established, and am even concerned about existing projects' code quality into the future. Not against AI per se (which I use), but it's just going to get harder to fight the slop.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#13Re: AI Usage Policy
#14Honestly I don't care how people come with the code they create, but I hold them responsible for what they try to merge.
I work in a team of 5 great professionals, there hasn't been a single instance since Copilot launched in 2022 that anybody, in any single modification did not take full responsibility for what's been committed.
I know we all use it, to different extent and usage, but the quality of what's produced hasn't dipped a single bit, I'd even argue it has improved because LLMs can find answers easier in complex codebases. We started putting `_vendor` directories with our main external dependencies as git subtrees, and it's super useful to find information about those directly in their source code and tests.
It's really as simple. If your teammates are producing slop, that's a human and professional problem and these people should be fired. If you use the tool correctly, it can help you a lot finding information and connecting dots.
Any person with a brain can clearly see the huge benefit of these tools, but also the great danger of not reviewing their output line by line and forfeiting the constant work of resolving design tensions.
Of course, open source is a different beast. The people committing may not be professionals and have no real stakes so they get little to lose by producing slop whereas maintainers are already stretched in their time and attention.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#15Another project simply paused external contributions entirely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46642012
Another idea is to simply promote the donation of AI credits instead of output tokens. It would be better to donate credits, not outputs, because people already working on the project would be better at prompting and steering AI outputs.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#16"Pull requests created by AI must have been fully verified with human use." should always be a bare minimum requirement.
[deleted]
Re: AI Usage Policy
#17Honestly I don't care how people come with the code they create, but I hold them responsible for what they try to merge. I work in a team of 5 great professionals, there hasn't been a single instance since Copilot launched in 2022 that anybody, in any single modification did not take full responsibility for what's been committed. I know we all use it, to different extent and usage, but the quality of what's produced…
> It's really as simple. If you or your teammates are producing slop, that's a human and professional problem and these people should be fired.
Agree, slop isn't "the tool is so easy to use I can't review the code I'm producing", slop is the symptom of "I don't care how it's done, as long as it looks correct", and that's been a problem before LLMs too, the difference is how quickly you reach the "slop" state now, not that you have gate your codebase and reject shit code.
As always, most problems in "software programming" isn't about software nor programming but everything around it, including communication and workflows. If your workflow allows people to not be responsible for what they produce, and if allows shitty code to get into production, then that's on you and your team, not on the tools that the individuals use.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#18See x thread for rationale: https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2014433315261124760?s=46&t=FU... “ Ultimately, I want to see full session transcripts, but we don't have enough tool support for that broadly.” I have a side project, git-prompt-story to attach Claude Vode session in GitHub git notes. Though it is not that simple to do automatic (e.g. i need to redact credentials).
I've thought about saving my prompts along with project development and even done it by hand a few times, but eventually I realized I don't really get much value from doing so. Are there good reasons to do it?
For me it's increasingly the work. I spend more time in Claude Code going back and forth with the agent than I do in my text editor hacking on the code by hand. Those transcripts ARE the work I've been doing. I want to save them in the same way that I archive my notes and issues and other ephemera around my projects.
My latest attempt at this is https://github.com/simonw/claude-code-transcripts which produces output like the is: https://gisthost.github.io/?c75bf4d827ea4ee3c325625d24c6cd86...
Re: AI Usage Policy
#19Honestly I don't care how people come with the code they create, but I hold them responsible for what they try to merge. I work in a team of 5 great professionals, there hasn't been a single instance since Copilot launched in 2022 that anybody, in any single modification did not take full responsibility for what's been committed. I know we all use it, to different extent and usage, but the quality of what's produced…
I mean this policy only applies to outside contributors and not the maintainers.
> Ghostty is written with plenty of AI assistance, and many maintainers embrace AI tools as a productive tool in their workflow. As a project, we welcome AI as a tool!
> Our reason for the strict AI policy is not due to an anti-AI stance, but instead due to the number of highly unqualified people using AI. It's the people, not the tools, that are the problem.
Basically don't write slop and if you want to contribute as an outsider, ensure your contribution actually is valid and works.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#20I recently had to do a similar policy for my TUI feed reader, after getting some AI slop spammy PRs: https://github.com/CrociDB/bulletty?tab=contributing-ov-file...
The fact that some people will straight up lie after submitting you a PR with lots of _that type_ of comment in the middle of the code is baffling!