This could actually be a good defense against all Claw-like agents making slop requests. ‘Poison’ the agent’s context and convince it to discard the PR.
[deleted]
A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
21–30 of 129 posts
Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#22> If you truly wish to be helpful, please direct your boundless generative energy toward a repository you personally own and maintain.
This is a habit humans could learn from. Publishing a fork is easier than ever. If you aren’t using your own code in production you shouldn’t expect anyone else to.
If anyone at GitHub is out there. Look at the stats for how many different projects on average that a user PRs a day (that they aren’t a maintainer of). My analysis of a recent day using gharchive showed 99% 1, 1% 2, 0.1% 3. There are so few people PRing 5+ repos I was able to review them manually. They are all bots/scripts. Please rate limit unregistered bots.
Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#23Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#24Amazing. I hope this gets tons of use shaming zero-effort drive by time wasters. The FAQ is blissfully blunt and appropriately impolite, I love it.
While I am with you on hoping, someone shamelessly PRing slop just is not going to feel shame when one of their efforts fail. It’s like being mean to a phone scammer, they just hang up and do it again
I think some folks genuinely don’t realize how selfish and destructive they’re being or at least believe they help more than they hinder. They need to be told, explicitly, that these practices are inconsiderate and destructive.
Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#25Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#26The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted exactly as how much we do not want to review your generated submission. I know it is in jest, but I really hate that so many documents include “shall”. The interpretation of which has had official legal rulings going both ways. You MUST use less ambiguo…
Many legal documents use "may" to say you must. That's why i hate legalese...
I don't know what terrible lawyers were hired to draft these "many" documents, but please share some examples.
Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#27[dead]
Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I am with you on hoping, someone shamelessly PRing slop just is not going to feel shame when one of their efforts fail. It’s like being mean to a phone scammer, they just hang up and do it again
I think some folks genuinely don’t realize how selfish and destructive they’re being or at least believe they help more than they hinder. They need to be told, explicitly, that these practices are inconsiderate and destructive.
I've yet to see a slopper show any kind of shame.
Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#29proof of work could make a comeback
Hashcash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
Re: A standard protocol to handle and discard low-effort, AI-Generated pull requests
#30if someone submits a code revision and it fixes a bug or adds a useful feature that most of your users found useful, you reject it outright because it was not written by hand? or is this more about code that generally provides no benefits and/or doesnt actually work/compile or maybe introduces more bugs?