Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag

archestra.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 254 posts

Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag

#132

Post by corps_and_code »

rglullis wrote: post #63

'I will take "problems that could be easily be solved by implementing a Pfand system" for $200, Alex.' Seriously. Just ask for a US$10 deposit for the each PR. If the PR is accepted (not even merged, just accepted as "this is a good effort"), give it back. Hell, give double the amount for good effort and you got yourself a cheap way to attract good contributors. Best case, bots will balk at the payment. Worst case, t…

Interesting idea, I wonder about using it myself.

Let's say I'm a maintainer of an open source project on Github/Gitlab. How would you actually implement this deposit-refund loop in practice?

Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag

#133

Post by halapro »

ildari wrote: post #2

Hi HN community, I wanted to share our approach to reduce amount of AI slop PR's and issues in our repo. We enabled "require prior contribution" flag on GH and created a CI script that creates a tiny commit co-authored with you, if you pass captcha on our website. Worked really well and we were able to block at least 500 bots in the first week. Sharing a screenshot from cloudflare: https://archestra.ai/hn-comment-clo…

Who do you add as a contributor though? Wannabe-contributors? Then they appear in the list of contributors before you even see if they're capable of producing an acceptable PR.

Your solution would be great if GitHub would also allow me to whitelist specific users, but unfortunately this still won't block "implementation plans" in comments.

Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag

#134

Post by mschuster91 »

nubinetwork wrote: post #128

While git has always allowed this, I don't really like the idea that someone can write some code, slap my name on it, and push it to their repo.

Yup. At the very least, the "big dogs" aka Github and Gitlab should allow you to "claim" an email address to an account and only link it up when the commit in question either directly got authored from the web UI or got cryptographically signed.

Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag

#135

Post by backwardsponcho »

rglullis wrote: post #63

'I will take "problems that could be easily be solved by implementing a Pfand system" for $200, Alex.' Seriously. Just ask for a US$10 deposit for the each PR. If the PR is accepted (not even merged, just accepted as "this is a good effort"), give it back. Hell, give double the amount for good effort and you got yourself a cheap way to attract good contributors. Best case, bots will balk at the payment. Worst case, t…

Yeah, because we'd hate to allow people from poor countries to contribute to FOSS projects, right?

Or teenagers without full access to online banking.

Or the unemployed.

Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag

#136

Post by [deleted] »

arecsu wrote: post #16

Makes me wonder if an ELO-based system would work to mitigate these issues. People who merged PR successfully onto a project, that had real issues acknowledged, the quality of their responses measured by other users reactions or something, etc, multiplied possibly by the degree of importance of the project where their activity has been made. Won't be about human vs AI, but actual helpful effective being vs low effort…

[deleted]

Re: We stopped AI bot spam in our GitHub repo using Git's –author flag

#138

Post by godelski »

rglullis wrote: post #98
godelski wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I pay $10 when your bot fucks up? That's called theft. And for what, one banana?

Obviously, the triage should be done by a human and not automated.

Doesn't that put us into the same position?

Let's also be realistic, everything that can be automated will. Even if that thing is worse off for it. There's a clear historic pattern of this. Companies and people love to be penny wise and pound foolish.

Post reply on HN