AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

Post by zero_bias » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 8:27 PM UTC

UncleEntity wrote: post #130

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #121

When I read this discussion on GitHub, a quite different thought than what the comments here on HN discuss comes to my mind: Why is the person who made this AI-generated pull request (joelreymont) so insistent that his PR gets merged? If I created some pull request and this pull request got rejected for reasons that I consider to be unjust, I would say: "OK, I previously loved this project and thus did such an effort…

Yeah, I learned my lesson on this... I used to contribute to a FLOSS project years ago and decided to use Claude to do some work on their codebase recently where they basically told me to go away with these daffy robots or, at the very least, nobody will review the code. Luckily, I know better than putting too much work into something like this and only wasted enough time to demonstrate the basic functionality. So...…

Post by phatskat » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 8:33 PM UTC

inejge wrote: post #55

fzaninotto wrote: post #45

I've closed my share of AI-generated PRs on some OSS repositories I maintain. These contributors seem to jump from one project to another, until their contribution is accepted (recognized ?). I wonder how long the open-source ecosystem will be able to resist this wave. The burden of reviewing AI-generated PRs is already not sustainable for maintainers, and the number of real open-source contributors is decreasing. Si…

> I wonder how long the open-source ecosystem will be able to resist this wave. This PR was very successfully resisted: closed and locked without much reviewing. And with a lot of tolerance and patience from the developers, much more than I believe to be fruitful: the "author" is remarkably resistant to argument. So, I think that others can resist in the same way.

Post by ath3nd » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 8:49 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #131

hypeatei wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's clear some people have had their brain broken by the existence of AI. Some maintainers are definitely too nice, and it's infuriating to see their time get wasted by such delusional people.

> " It's clear some people have had their brain broken by the existence of AI. " The AI wrote code which worked, for a problem the submitter had, which had not been solved by any human for a long time, and there is limited human developer time/interest/funding available for solving it. Dumping a mass of code (and work) onto maintainers without prior discussion is the problem[1]. If they had forked the repo, patched i…

Post by incognito124 » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 10:24 PM UTC

philipwhiuk wrote: post #125

> P.S. Pushing my ambitions onto unsuspecting open-source communities was a mistake I won’t repeat. The best playground is always your own project. In fairness, the author claims to have learned - quoting from his portfolio page So... 1 down, 6.9 billion to go.

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 » Tue, Nov 25, 2025, 11:09 PM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #94

benterix wrote: post #62

Did these Ocaml maintainers undergo some special course for dealing with difficult people? They show enormous amounts of maturity and patience. I'd just give the offender Torvalds' treatment and block them from the repo, case closed.

I honestly reread the whole thread in awe. Not due to the submitter, as clickbaity as it was, but reading the maintainers and comparing their replies with what I would have written in their place. That was a masterclass of defending your arguments rationally, with empathy, and leaving negative emotions at the door. I wish I was able to communicate like this. My only doubt is whether this has a good or bad effect over…