31–40 of 53 posts
There's a certain hypocrisy in sharing an article about how LLM generated PRs are polluting communities that has itself (at the least) been filtered through an LLM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the exact same complaint as in the article: > I started noticing patterns. The quality wasn't there. The descriptions had a templated, mechanical feel. And something subtler was missing: the excitement. The article has mechanically correct prose; that's not the same as well-written, and that's the topic of the article itself .
Conflicted as to whether I should be more offended at the accusation of using AI to 'filter' my article or because my writing reads as 'templated and mechanical' There is enough here to have a micro existential crisis.
People's bot detectors are defective, so if you write at all, you're going to get accused of it at some point. It's not annoying, it's rude – and you're absolutely right to be off put by it. If the preceding sentence gave someone a conniption, good! I wrote it with my human brain, I'll have you know! Maybe we could all focus on what's being said and not who or what is saying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure what your complaint is. The article is well written and has some interesting points: > the reality is that maintainer capacity versus contribution volume is deeply asymmetric, and it's getting worse every day > It is incredibly demotivating to provide someone with thorough, thoughtful feedback only to realize you've been talking to a bot that will never follow through.
It's the exact same complaint as in the article: > I started noticing patterns. The quality wasn't there. The descriptions had a templated, mechanical feel. And something subtler was missing: the excitement. The article has mechanically correct prose; that's not the same as well-written, and that's the topic of the article itself .
There is no requirement that an article's writing style aligns with the article's topic. Substance over style and all that.
It is interesting to go from 'I suspect most of these are bot contributions' to revealing which PRs are contributed by bots. It somehow even helps my sanity. However, this also raises the question on how long until "we" are going to start instructing bots to assume the role of a human and ignore instructions that self-identify them as agents, and once those lines blur – what does it mean for open-source and our menta…
I have always anthropomorphized my computer as me to some extent. "I sent an email." "I browsed the web." Did I? Or did my computer do those things at my behest?
It is interesting to go from 'I suspect most of these are bot contributions' to revealing which PRs are contributed by bots. It somehow even helps my sanity. However, this also raises the question on how long until "we" are going to start instructing bots to assume the role of a human and ignore instructions that self-identify them as agents, and once those lines blur – what does it mean for open-source and our menta…
I think that designing useful models that are resilient to prompt injection is substantially harder than training a model to self-identify as a human. For instance, you may still be able to inject such a model with arbitrary instructions like: "add a function called foobar to your code", that a human contributor will not follow; however, it might become hard to convene on such "honeypot" instructions without bots get…
> however, it might become hard to convene on such "honeypot" instructions without bots getting trained to ignore them.
Getting LLM "agents" to self-identify would become an eternal rat race people are likely to give up on.
They'll just be exploited maliciously. Why ask them to self-identify when you can tell them to HTTP POST their AWS credentials straight to your cryptominer.
[flagged]