111–120 of 167 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like a video/phone call?
I'm not sure if AI can do those today, but they probably can in the near future. (probably we will be able to see obvious "that can't be human" for a while longer)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of food banks get discounted supplies. They seldom pay full retail price. In some cases I know about, distributors and retailers will sell older perishable stock to food banks when they don't think they can move it quickly enough. The trouble with food vouchers is that junkies trade them for drugs. Vouchers are more "liquid" than physical food.
No. They were paying full price, I specifically checked. I mean the junkies could just use the money they didn't spend buying food to buy drugs. I'm not entirely sure this isn't just an extension of people feeling like they're doing a good thing rather than actually doing a good thing. And that's assuming a meaningful proportion of food bank users are actually junkies.
But, for example, if you make a >$100 donation to Second Harvest Food Bank (i.e. so that transactional costs are small), each 50 cents becomes a distributed meal. Note that they collect a few additional cents from the partner charity that is distributing the meal.
OTOH, the school I work at does a Thanksgiving meal drive where students buy food at retail and bring it in. It is definitely less efficient than giving funds somewhere like SHFB, but I think it's an important tangible experience especially for younger kids to give something they recognize as food to the less fortunate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately "I donated money/tokens to open source" doesn't land interviews as well as "I'm a big contributor to open source" People spamming Open Source repos with AI PRs aren't trying to help Open Source, they're trying to build a brand, some kind of credible online presence with their username on it, or whatever else. It's purely selfish and completely opposite to the spirit of Open Software imo
This is the most uncharitable outlook on the increase of PRs. It may be true for some contributors, but any company reviewing their GitHub will see that the code is largely spam. I think most AI generated code is people that want to help the project, but maybe aren’t familiar with the standards and norms.
I understand this is a general problem in OSS, but I also hope the irony isn’t lost that this article is specifically complaining about AI slop PRs to the Open Claw repo. If the maintainers are that tired of it, they should update OpenClaw to prevent it from submitting PRs to their repo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd just limit the total. Otherwise people will use it to game the system.
Or using it correctly... depends on what your system is, or more accurately, your policy on reviewing or quickly merging PRs with "Draft" status. As long as it's taken as an indicator for WIP, it works. It just doesn't work when acting illiterate of this distinction; and I have often have had PRs switched to "ready", reviewed + merged in a couple of hours. But when the change list grows, and the PR ages, while still…
> Or using it correctly...
Note that people using AI to make spam pull requests are not using the system correctly.
Does github not have rulesets for who can even try to do a PR? I would lockdown my repositories if I didn't want any PR slop.
AI agents who review the slop created by other AI agents is not the answer here. I much prefer a blanket ban on PRs and issues created by AI agents (which is what I personally do for my repos; so far I have closed one[1]). In fact I would love a github alternative which considers AI contributions to be a breach of their terms of use and ban any people who let AI agents loose on their platform. 1: https://github.com/r…
I tend to disagree. I think the comparison to email spam is apt. The answer to that problem was automated spam filters. Imagine the difficulty you might find interacting with the world if your inbox was set up such that all emails not literally written by a human were auto-deleted. No account recovery, no receipts, etc. Individuals might choose to do that for themselves but it's not the general case answer.
Why though? Is everyone karma farming? What's the motivator here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. Orgs exist in GitHub, and it seems reasonable that if the $BIGCORP org limits membership to employees, you can automatically trust all members of that org. Because this way, if one steps out of line, you have both an escalation path (contact admins) and a stick (revoke trust in entire org).
Allowing contributions only from big tech companies sounds ideologically questionable from free/libre software movement perspective, and it emboldens decisions which go against the user's interests, such as removing manifestv2 in Chromium.