Why though? Is everyone karma farming? What's the motivator here?
to get reputation, may benefits from huge companies such like github(via copilot) etc.
Like what? Do you get tokens for "helping open source" or something?
PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
121–130 of 167 posts
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#122GitHub just recently added configurable PR limits for maintainers to help partially address this problem: https://github.blog/open-source/maintainers/how-pull-request...
> At OpenClaw we get a huge volume of pull requests from the community and had to build our own bots for fighting spam.
I find it ironic that the people who originate the idea of AI-code-spam are being negatively impacted by this.
But all they will do is build an AI agent to review the code written by an AI agent, that probably never needed to be written to begin with.
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#123When the title said PR spam my first thought was the massive amount of scam posts released by Antrophic, OpenAI and a gazillion AI tools that solve all your problems (supposedly). Much to my surprise this was also an ad for an AI tool. Lowkey disappointing
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#124AI 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…
But what about the good AI driven contributions though? Do you categorize all AI changes as slop by default or only the real bad ones that mix refactoring and tons of other unrelated changes with a fix? Some can fix real issues, with a well targeted fix (not rewriting the world), well defined test and write up. If you accepted PRs before for other issues, you should be able to review and accept those too.
AI driven contributions aren't the same thing as AI agent submitted PRs. If a new human contributor attempts to submit low-quality submissions (regardless of AI usage), you can teach them to improve or convince them to change their methodology. If a commercially available AI agent thinks its a good idea to submit PRs to you, you're stuck dealing with default-settings AI agents sending the same kind of stream of PRs to your project indefinitely.
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#125Maybe we should cut out the middle-man and make it easy for people to donate token credits to open-source projects, and let the maintainers decide how to use them.
as an open source project maintainer, we dont want tokens bro, we want $.
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we want to keep it objective, one metric can already be calculated based on the user history of the submitter. The spammers profile will be full of unmerged or abandoned prs. Just based on those statistics beginners might be close to zero rating but spammers would be negative. Unless I totally missed that people are also making new accounts of each PR.
Create lots of fake repos/prs to improve your ratio?
Stars are a really bad metric for quality/popularity but they're something here. I think some sort of impact score when combined with repo age, # contributors, etc would be pretty valuable.
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#127In my main project we added a new requirement that all new contributors meet a maintainer in a non-textual format before their first PR is merged. Seems to work well for a small project.
I'd be really happy to come across this in a project I were interested in. So much hobby OSS is infested with slop that I don't even want to skim the code if I pick up a hint that there's no humans at the wheel.
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Op said nothing about only allowing corporations. Simply stated that one path to allowing large swaths of users without having to approve every single individual user is to trust all users of certain orgs by default. Presumably you would still allow individual contributions but with restrictions unless someone has vouched for them or some other gating factor.
The thing is, it becomes a slippery slope. It's "corp accounts are pre vouched today", "non corp accounts are temporarily suspended for a few days during some downtime", to "we've decided to only allow corp accounts going forward".
Where does the frog stop getting boiled?
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically one of the first recognizable spam campaigns was perpetrated by lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
On the flip side, the lawyers that represented the big tech firms at the time were some of the most impressive people I've ever met. You could speak to them as a peer when it came to technical issues or system architecture AND they were experts in technology law. Especially impressive given that anti-spam was still in it's infancy and rapidly evolving.
When I was a lawyer my selling point was exactly that I knew tech deeply, coming from a dev background, and was current as I read Slashdot daily compiled my own Linux kernels etc. It allows punters trust you & is a rainmaking skill.
Re: PR spam today looks like email spam in the early 2000s
#130Why though? Is everyone karma farming? What's the motivator here?
They honestly think they're doing the world a favour, and their AI slop is helpful. It is clear by now that there are a lot of people with not a great deal of self-awareness.