71–80 of 308 posts
Very reasonable stance. I see reviewing and accepting a PR is a question of trust - you trust the submitter to have done the most he can for the PR to be correct and useful. Something might be required now as some people might think that just asking an LLM is "the most he can done", but it's not about using AI it's about being aware and responsible about using it.
> disclosure if "a significant portion of the contribution is taken from a tool without manual modification", and labeling of such contributions with "a clear disclaimer or a machine-readable tag like '[AI-Generated]'. Quixotic, unworkable, pointless. It’s fundamentally impossible (at least without a level of surveillance that would obviously be unavceptable) to prove the “artisanal hand-crafted human code” label. >…
Difficulty of enforcing is a detail. Since the rule exists, it can be used when detection is done. And importantly it means that ignoring the rule means you’re intentionally defrauding the project.
My two cents: I've been coding practically my entire life, but a few years back I sustained a pretty significant and lasting injury to my wrists. As such, I have very little tolerance for typing. It's been quite a problem and made full time work impossible. With the advent of LLMs, AI-autocomplete, and agent-based development workflows, my ability to deliver reliable, high-quality code is restored and (arguably) bett…
I think the ugly unspoken truth whether Mozilla or Debian or someone else, is that there are going to be plausible and valuable use cases and that AI as a paradigm is going to be a hard problem the same way that presiding over, say, a justice system is a hard problem (stay with me). What I mean is it can have a legitimate purpose but be prone to abuse and it's a matter of building in institutional safeguards and winning people's trust while never fully being able to eliminate risk.
It's easy for someone to roll their eyes at the idea that there's utility but accessibility is perfect and clear-eyed use case, that makes it harder to simply default to hedonic skepticism against any and all AI applications. I actually think it could have huge implications for leveling the playing field in the browser wars for my particular pet issue.
My two cents: I've been coding practically my entire life, but a few years back I sustained a pretty significant and lasting injury to my wrists. As such, I have very little tolerance for typing. It's been quite a problem and made full time work impossible. With the advent of LLMs, AI-autocomplete, and agent-based development workflows, my ability to deliver reliable, high-quality code is restored and (arguably) bett…
This is the technique I've picked up and got the most from over the past few months. I don't give it hard, high-level problems and then review a giant set of changes to figure it out. I give it the technical solution I was already going to implement anyway, and then have it generate the code I otherwise would have written.
It cuts back dramatically on the review fatigue because I already know exactly what I'm expecting to see, so my reviews are primarily focused on the deviations from that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better Crystal ball or time machine?
Crystal ball, maybe, but 3 years ago, the AI generated classes with empty methods containing "// implement logic here" and now, AI is generating whole stack applications that run from the first try. Past performance does not guarantee future results, of course. But acting like AI is now magically going to stagnate is also a really bold bet.
I sincerely doubt that, because it still can't even generate a few hundred line script that runs on the first try. I would know, I just tried yesterday. The first attempt was using hallucinated APIs and while I did get it to work eventually, I don't think it can one shot a complex application if it can't one shot a simple script.
IMO, AI has already stagnated and isn't significantly better than it was 3 years ago. I don't see how it's supposed to get better still when the improvement has already stopped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless … If you tell me AI isn't allowed because it writes bad code I disagree that the rule is pointless, and your last point is a strawman. AI is disallowed because it’s the manner in which the would-be contributors are attempting to contribute to these projects. It’s a proxy rule. Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be huma…
> Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be human understanding, and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset. This isn't necessarily true; I've seen some projects absorb a PR of roughly that size, and after the smoke tests and other standard development stuff, th…
This anecdotal argument is a dead end. The nuance is clear: not all software is the same, and not all edits to software are the same.
My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…
Precisely. “AI” contributions should be seen as an extension of the individual. If anything, they could ask that the account belong to a person and not be a second bot only account. Basically, a person’s own reputation should be on the line.
That's an OK view to hold, but I'll point out two things. First, it's not how the tech is usually wielded to interact with open-source software. Second, your worldview is at odds with the owners of this technology: the main reason why so much money is being poured into AI coding is that it's seen by investors as a replacement for the individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. “AI” contributions should be seen as an extension of the individual. If anything, they could ask that the account belong to a person and not be a second bot only account. Basically, a person’s own reputation should be on the line.
Reputation isn't very relevant here. Yes, for established well known FOSS developers, their reputation will tank if they put out sloppy PRs and people will just ignore them. But the projects aren't drowning under PRs from reputable people. They're drowning in drive-by PRs from people with no reputation to speak of. Even if you outright ban their account, they'll just spin up a new one and try again. Blocking AI submi…
1. You layout policy stating that all code, especially AI code has to be written to a high quality level and have been reviewed for issues prior to submission.
2. Given that even the fastest AI models do a great job of code reviews, you setup an agent using Codex-Spark or Sonnnet, etc to scan submissions for a few different dimensions (maintainability, security, etc).
3. If a submission comes through that fails review, that's a strong indication that the submitter hasn't put even the lowest effort into reviewing their own code. Especially since most AI models will flag similar issues. Knock their trust score down and supply feedback.
3a. If the submitter never acts on the feedback - close the submission and knock the trust score down even more.
3b. If the submitter acts on the feedback - boost trust score slightly. We now have a self-reinforcing loop that pushes thoughtful submitters to screen their own code. (Or ai models to iterate and improve their own code)
4. Submission passes and trust score of submitter meets some minimal threshold. Queued for human review pending prioritization.
I haven't put much thought into this but it seems like you could design a system such that "clout chasing" or "bot submissions" would be forced to either deliver something useful or give up _and_ lose enough trust score that you can safely shadowban them.
My two cents: I've been coding practically my entire life, but a few years back I sustained a pretty significant and lasting injury to my wrists. As such, I have very little tolerance for typing. It's been quite a problem and made full time work impossible. With the advent of LLMs, AI-autocomplete, and agent-based development workflows, my ability to deliver reliable, high-quality code is restored and (arguably) bett…