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

161–170 of 254 posts

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

#161

Post by rglullis »

LtWorf wrote: post #158
rglullis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's cheating if the projects using it are cryptocurrency related :) A generic python library used by generic people who have no interest in this field is something else.

Coinbase reports more than 100+ user accounts worldwide. Kraken has ~10M.

Also, we are talking about people who are tech-savvy enough to be interested in participating in a FOSS project. Opening an account at an exchange is not rocket science.

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

#162

Post by rglullis »

halapro wrote: post #127
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…

Possibly the worst idea I've heard this month. No one, meat or chip, would just set aside $10 "for the opportunity to contribute" This is "let them eat cake" level of out of touchness.

I have 3 PRs on https://github.com/django-oauth/django-oauth-toolkit/pulls that haven't been merged for OVER AN YEAR due to the maintaners being overloaded and who are expected to work on this for free. The fact that these PRs are not being promptly reviewed have cost me at least 3000€ in potential grant work.

If I was told that I could make a deposit of $10 to get less stressed maintainers and a faster PR review cycle, I wouldn't even blink. I wouldn't even ask for the money back.

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

#163

Post by rglullis »

backwardsponcho wrote: post #135
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.

Oh, give me a break. No one is taking the ability from others to fork the repo. If these exceptional cases really were to happen, how fast would it be for someone else to notice and do one of (a) notify the maintainers to get this particular user whitelisted or (b) front the entry costs?

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

#164

Post by rtdq »

smaudet wrote: post #146
rtdq wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Dude, you're claiming that there's no likelihood of people getting swindled out of their money by handing it over to strangers. So your reaction is to play the bot card? We're done. You're clearly not arguing in good faith here.

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

#165

Post by karel-3d »

infinitifall wrote: post #54

Is the solution to everything simply more catgirls [1]? Proof-of-work was, after all, about countering email spam. PR spam is but the latest in that long tradition. 1- https://anubis.techaro.lol

I think Anubis is against crawlers, not against agents that make PRs. PoW doesn't work here, the agent will just do the computation.

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

#168

Post by rglullis »

skrebbel wrote: post #152
rglullis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Once a PR is rejected, contact from that bot is blocked. No appeals.

This is never going to work. Sufficiently many of these people are going to find maintainers' home addresses and send them death threats and the likes. If you see how badly some people flip out just because their PR is rejected, it's going to be much much worse if their PR is rejected and their money is taken.

Ok. If I'm the maintainer receiving death threats over that, I'd tell them they would get the $10 dollars back, plus some extra money for their troubles.

Location of the envelope with the money: the same police station where I'd reported the death threats.

Post reply on HN