201–210 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commit you listed was merged upstream. https://github.com/zigimg/zigimg/pull/313
So does that mean they contradicted their own no LLM policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds complicated in theory, but it's easier in practice. Potential long time contributor is somebody who was already asking annoying questions in the irc channel for a few months and helped with other stuff before shooting off th e PR. If the PR is the first time you hear from a person -- that's pretty drive-by ish.
Why would I ask annoying questions when I can identify, reproduce, pinpoint the bug, locate it in code, and fix it? Doing it alone should make it clear I don't need to ask to understand it. And why would I be interested in small talk? Doubt many people are when they patch up their work tools. It's a dispassionate kind of kindness. Not to mention LLMs can be annoying, too. Demand this, and you'll only be inviting bots…
Because if the bug is sufficiently simple that an outsider with zero context to fix, there's a non-zero chance that the maintainers know about it and have a reason why it hasn't been addressed yet
i.e. the bug fix may have backwards-compatibility implications for other users which you aren't aware of. Or the maintainers may be bandwidth-limited, and reviewing your PR is an additional drain on that bandwidth that takes away from fixing larger issues
While I am more on the AI-hater side, I don't consider this to be a good idea: "any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed" For example: - What if a non-native English speaker uses the help of an AI model in the formulation of some issue/task? - What about having a plugin in your IDE that rather gives sy…
How can you be sure the AI translation is accurately convening what was written by the speaker? The reality is you can't accommodate every hypothetical scenario.
> What about having a plugin in your IDE that rather gives syntax and small code fragment suggestions ("autocomplete on steroids")? Does this policy mean that the programmers are also restricted on the IDE and plugins that they are allowed to have installed if they want to contribute?
Nobody is talking about advanced autocomplete when they want to ban AI code. It's prompt generated code.
While I am more on the AI-hater side, I don't consider this to be a good idea: "any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed" For example: - What if a non-native English speaker uses the help of an AI model in the formulation of some issue/task? - What about having a plugin in your IDE that rather gives sy…
Firefox has direct translation built in. One can self-host libretranslate. There are many free sites to paste in language input and get a direct translation sans filler and AI "interpretation". Just write in your native language or your imperfect English.
I think this is a reasonable decision (although maybe increasingly insufficient). It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers. In the past, the code itself was a sort of proof of effort - you would need to invest some time and effort on your PRs, otherwise they would be easily dismissed at a glance. That is no longer the case, as LLMs can quickly g…
Project maintainers will always have the right to decide how to maintain their projects, and "owe" nothing to no one. That being said, to outright ban a technology in 2026 on pure "vibes" is not something I'd say is reasonable. Others have already commented that it's likely unenforceable, but I'd also say it's unreasonable for the sake of utility. It leaves stuff on the table in a time where they really shouldn't. Th…
Licensing is dependent on IPR, primarily copyright.
It is very unclear whether the output of an AI tool is subject to copyright.
So if someone uses AI to refactor some code, that refactored code isn't considered a derivative work which means that the refactored source is no longer covered by the copyright, or the license that depends on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are asking me to author my contributions in a way that they approve of. The essence of the request is the same as asking someone to author them whilst standing on their head. Except they don’t, won’t and can’t control that: the very request is insulting. I’ll make a change any way I choose, upright, sideways, using AI. My choice. Not theirs. Their choice is to accept it or reject it based purely on the change it…
So, "might makes right", essentially?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My rules of thumb is much shorter: don't. The open source world has already been ripped off by AI the last thing they need is for AI to pollute the pedigree of the codebase.
Suppose almost all work in the future is done via LLMs, just like almost all transportation is done today via cars instead of horses. Do you think your worldview is still a reasonable one under those conditions?
I think we will be getting into an interesting situation soon, where project maintainers use LLMs because they truly are useful in many cases, but will ban contributors for doing so, because they can't review how well did the user guide the LLM.
But I think different projects have different needs.
[0] https://github.com/mastodon/.github/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md
Glad to see they are applying some rigor. I've started removing AI-heavy projects from my dependency tree.
It seems well intentioned, but lots of bad ideas are like this.
I was told by my customer they didn't need my help because Claude Code did the program they wanted me to quote. I sheepishly said, 'I can send an intern to work in-house if you don't want to spend internal resources on it.'
I can't really imagine what kind of code will be done by hand anymore... Even military level stuff can run large local models.