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

71–80 of 254 posts

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

#71

Post by rglullis »

skrebbel wrote: post #66
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…

Easily? You think the kind of people who think it makes sense to make bogus slop PRs are going to react reasonably to overburdened volunteer maintainers refusing to give them their US$10 back?

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

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

#72

Post by opengrass »

finseam wrote: post #41
ildari wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fair point! We believe "Require approval for all external contributors" should be a default setting, as you cannot trust anyone who is not a member of the organization

Interesting approach. We’ve seen similar spam/noise problems appear in financial workflow automation too — especially when AI-generated submissions scale faster than manual review processes.

too — especially

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

#73

Post by kridsdale1 »

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…

This is exactly the strategy that the owner of the SomethingAwful forum used in 2004 to get rid of bots and assholes. (I used to remember his name, kinda famous, oh well).

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

#74

Post by dmboyd »

sebastiansm7 wrote: post #37
arecsu wrote: post #16

Makes me wonder if an ELO-based system would work to mitigate these issues. People who merged PR successfully onto a project, that had real issues acknowledged, the quality of their responses measured by other users reactions or something, etc, multiplied possibly by the degree of importance of the project where their activity has been made. Won't be about human vs AI, but actual helpful effective being vs low effort…

It's Elo not ELO. Elo is not an acronym. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

That’s a fun fact!

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

#75

Post by Barbing »

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…

$10 to a Silicon Valley software engineer reading this comment may feel like... $(a lot?)... to a range of other would-be contributors (thinking of $6/day minimum wages in some places, for example)

Wonder if a dollar would work for now until more people give bots credit cards.

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

#77

Post by rtdq »

rglullis wrote: post #71
skrebbel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily? You think the kind of people who think it makes sense to make bogus slop PRs are going to react reasonably to overburdened volunteer maintainers refusing to give them their US$10 back?

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

The worst case is that someone loses out on $10, no? How does this work if the maintainer is the swindler?

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

#78

Post by krupan »

This is what we get for telling everyone how amazing AI is at writing code. It started with the people selling AI and for some reason tons of independent developers, some quite well respected in our field, piled on. Facebook now laying people off and saying it's because AI is just so good adds more fuel to the fire. Now you have a bunch of people fully confident that their AI friend is pumping out amazing code and submitting it to projects that are completely overwhelmed

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

#79

Post by LelouBil »

arecsu wrote: post #16

Makes me wonder if an ELO-based system would work to mitigate these issues. People who merged PR successfully onto a project, that had real issues acknowledged, the quality of their responses measured by other users reactions or something, etc, multiplied possibly by the degree of importance of the project where their activity has been made. Won't be about human vs AI, but actual helpful effective being vs low effort…

I think you need trust circles, not ELO.

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

#80

Post by godelski »

rglullis wrote: post #71
skrebbel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily? You think the kind of people who think it makes sense to make bogus slop PRs are going to react reasonably to overburdened volunteer maintainers refusing to give them their US$10 back?

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

So I pay $10 when your bot fucks up?

That's called theft. And for what, one banana?

Post reply on HN