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

141–150 of 254 posts

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

#141

Post by rglullis »

corps_and_code wrote: post #132
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?

I believe you are asking me in jest, but if you are genuine, this is what I would add to my CONTRIBUTING.md

``` # FIrst-time contributors

Due to the increased number of AI bots and low-effort contributions, we are being forced to add some friction for first-time contributors. PRs are closed for anyone not explicitly added to our list of authorized users.

To be accepted in the list, you must do one of the following:

- Show a history of meaningful contributions in projects from related technologies done before Jan 1st, 2023.

- Be vouched by one of the existing contributors in the core team

- (If you have github sponsors/polar/patreon) Be a sponsor for the project for the last 3 months)

- Submit a small payment, which will be held in escrow until your PR is accepted. The following methods are accepted (choose all that apply: paypal, SEPA, Crypto, Venmo, Pix, UPI, M-Pesa, etc) ```

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

#142

Post by kazinator »

> Final Words

> While GitHub reports massive metric growth — a substantial part of which is AI-generated — we as an open source project team have to do the heavy lifting of cleaning up AI slop from our repository and come up with esoteric workarounds to keep the level of legitimacy of our open source audience.

AI generated slop!

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

#144

Post by LtWorf »

rglullis wrote: post #102
igsomething wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then people from a sanctioned countries are blocked from open source, or worse, you have to explain to the bank and/or the government why you sent 20USD to someone in Venezuela.

And here we have another specimen of "things which crypto are actually useful" spotted in the wild!

I think the intersection of the set of people able and interested in contributing and those who are willing to figure out cryptocurrencies is the empty set.

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

#145

Post by rglullis »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #124
rglullis wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github already has the payment infrastructure. Polar.sh is already doing things that are a lot more complex in this space. If you are in a civilized country which allow direct payments (i.e, anything but North American nowadays) and you don't want to deal with Github or any external system, there is always good old "make a M-PESA/SEPA/Pix/UPI transfer to account XYZ") > the thought put into it as the actual solution…

> Github already has the payment infrastructure. ...which is not available to maintainers to use in this way. > there is always good old "make a M-PESA/SEPA/Pix/UPI transfer to account XYZ" And then lock out anyone who is not from the same country as the maintainer, on a platform that is known for its global reach. Moreover, you're introducing significant anti-human friction. For privacy-conscious people, it's a comp…

> significant anti-human friction

Yes, that friction is intentional. The lazy people don't want to do it? Great, there is very little chance their contributions are worthwhile. The privacy conscious people won't do it? Then let them work on their own repositories and complain loudly about the idiot maintainer who puts these insane barriers. Then the maintainer can go take a look at that forks done by the loud complainers and see if it is worth to whitelist them.

> it's why products/services that offer free trials or a free tier tend to be overwhelmingly more successful

Drug dealers also offer the first hit for free, why don't you use that as an example as well? ;)

To answer this properly in case the quip was too vague: there is no reason for "number of PRs opened by new contributors" to be a viable/interesting KPI for any FOSS project.

> I'll take the captcha, thanks.

First you need to show me all your cool FOSS projects.

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

#146

Post by smaudet »

rtdq wrote: post #123
smaudet wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like bot logic, lol. Unless the contributors don't care about the repos they contribute to, this is not a likely scenario. AI doesn't care. We do.

What is bot logic exactly? You keep describing this as not a likely or realistic scenario. But why is the likelihood even of relevance here? The way to avoid the worst case i.e scammed of your money, is to not even put it on the table in the first place.

> What is bot logic exactly?

Ill thought out logic like your own. I think you are likely a bot at this point.

It's not likely, because that's not something that people are likely to do. Only a bot like yourself with a poor model of the world will do this type of thing. It will be amusing to see the AI bots trying to run the scam you are describing and then nobody will contribute to the fake projects... except other fake AI contributors.

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

#147

Post by rglullis »

LtWorf wrote: post #144
rglullis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here we have another specimen of "things which crypto are actually useful" spotted in the wild!

I think the intersection of the set of people able and interested in contributing and those who are willing to figure out cryptocurrencies is the empty set.

I quick visit to https://gitcoin.co/campaigns will show you that you are wrong. Hundreds of projects funded by even more people.

Mind you: that's on one of the most convulated ways there is to get involved, because it involves a bunch of smart contract operations and on-chain voting. If we are talking about crypto only as a payment network, things are even simpler.

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

rglullis wrote: post #145
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Github already has the payment infrastructure. ...which is not available to maintainers to use in this way. > there is always good old "make a M-PESA/SEPA/Pix/UPI transfer to account XYZ" And then lock out anyone who is not from the same country as the maintainer, on a platform that is known for its global reach. Moreover, you're introducing significant anti-human friction. For privacy-conscious people, it's a comp…

> significant anti-human friction Yes, that friction is intentional . The lazy people don't want to do it? Great, there is very little chance their contributions are worthwhile. The privacy conscious people won't do it? Then let them work on their own repositories and complain loudly about the idiot maintainer who puts these insane barriers. Then the maintainer can go take a look at that forks done by the loud compla…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by rglullis »

godelski wrote: post #138
rglullis wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Doesn't that put us into the same position?

Of course not, because the number of low-quality PRs with $10 attached to it will be lower than whatever number of PRs are being created now.

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

#150

Post by corps_and_code »

rglullis wrote: post #141
corps_and_code wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe you are asking me in jest, but if you are genuine, this is what I would add to my CONTRIBUTING.md ``` # FIrst-time contributors Due to the increased number of AI bots and low-effort contributions, we are being forced to add some friction for first-time contributors. PRs are closed for anyone not explicitly added to our list of authorized users. To be accepted in the list, you must do one of the following: -…

Oh no, I'm being genuine. Documenting the process itself wasn't what I was curious about, I was wondering how you'd go about your last bullet. Accepting lots of currencies can be hard, but I guess I'm not super familiar with online escrow services. I'm not sure how simple they can make that process, or who would pay the cost of using them (I assume they're not free).

I was also wondering how automated or manual you would envision the review process. I'm guessing your hope would be that the small deposit would stem the flow of submissions enough to make it all possible to review manually again, and you would also manually return all the payments sent to escrow?

Post reply on HN