Live data from Hacker News

A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests

406.fail

11–20 of 129 posts

Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests

#11

Amazing. I hope this gets tons of use shaming zero-effort drive by time wasters. The FAQ is blissfully blunt and appropriately impolite, I love it.

While I am with you on hoping, someone shamelessly PRing slop just is not going to feel shame when one of their efforts fail. It’s like being mean to a phone scammer, they just hang up and do it again

[dead]

Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests

#13

The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted exactly as how much we do not want to review your generated submission. I know it is in jest, but I really hate that so many documents include “shall”. The interpretation of which has had official legal rulings going both ways. You MUST use less ambiguo…

Must is a strict requirement, no flexibility. Shall is a recommendation or a duty, you should do it. You must put gas in the car to drive it. You shall get an oil change every 6000 miles.

Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests

#15

The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted exactly as how much we do not want to review your generated submission. I know it is in jest, but I really hate that so many documents include “shall”. The interpretation of which has had official legal rulings going both ways. You MUST use less ambiguo…

Many legal documents use "may" to say you must. That's why i hate legalese...

Hmm, that's annoying, I'd take may as "CAN"

Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests

#18
post #13

The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted exactly as how much we do not want to review your generated submission. I know it is in jest, but I really hate that so many documents include “shall”. The interpretation of which has had official legal rulings going both ways. You MUST use less ambiguo…

Must is a strict requirement, no flexibility. Shall is a recommendation or a duty, you should do it. You must put gas in the car to drive it. You shall get an oil change every 6000 miles.

Well then you MUST reread RFC 2119, because your version of SHALL differs from the spec which says SHALL is equivalent to MUST and a hard requirement.

Perfectly making my point. Shall has no business being in a spec when you have unambiguous alternatives.

Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read it as this, what signs do you see?

Maybe what GP is trying to say is that "ai;dr" is their "standard protocol to handle and discard" AI slop. :)

True! I didn't think of it that way ;-)
Post reply on HN