The second one is true. Properly reviewing and understanding a project takes time, most people pushing quick AI PRs are doing so after the agent decided to use the project and “found a bug”, which might be just a hallucination.
People who don’t want to contribute without LLMs are probably not able to review and understand the code by themselves (or they will lose that ability soon enough)
most people pushing quick AI PRs
You’re arguing against a specific form of this and I feel like that specific form is what’s causing projects to adopt alienating policies. I’ve been doing this for 30 years, I am an AI-skeptic who has been exploring these tools for the last 6 months and am blown away by some of their capabilities. I don’t yolo slop to prod, it gets carefully reviewed, refined, sometimes thrown away and redone. If I find a bug in a software package, ask an LLM to put together a map for me of how that feature works and where the likely issue would be, use that map to manually inspect the source and figure out what’s going on and put together a patch from that… some projects’ policies state that they would rather not have my patch because I used an LLM in the creation of it.
some projects’ policies state that they would rather not have my patch because I used an LLM in the creation of it.
How much does this bother you? Enough to maintain a fork? It is quite interesting that people complain about this in place of doing what they are allowed to.
In this specific case? Yes, maintaining a private fork is straightforward. Yay git! We’re pinned to a specific version anyway for reasons.
It doesn’t bother me at all. That’s the joy of open source. I’ve got access to the source, I can fix bugs and add features if I want to. The project may not want my patches but I don’t need them to accept my patches in order to accomplish my goals. Like you said, it’s one of the things I’m allowed to do.
The second one is true. Properly reviewing and understanding a project takes time, most people pushing quick AI PRs are doing so after the agent decided to use the project and “found a bug”, which might be just a hallucination.
score 1 · canonical
You’re arguing against a specific form of this and I feel like that specific form is what’s causing projects to adopt alienating policies. I’ve been doing this for 30 years, I am an AI-skeptic who has been exploring these tools for the last 6 months and am blown away by some of their capabilities. I don’t yolo slop to prod, it gets carefully reviewed, refined, sometimes thrown away and redone. If I find a bug in a software package, ask an LLM to put together a map for me of how that feature works and where the likely issue would be, use that map to manually inspect the source and figure out what’s going on and put together a patch from that… some projects’ policies state that they would rather not have my patch because I used an LLM in the creation of it.
score 1 · canonical
How much does this bother you? Enough to maintain a fork? It is quite interesting that people complain about this in place of doing what they are allowed to.
score 1 · canonical
In this specific case? Yes, maintaining a private fork is straightforward. Yay git! We’re pinned to a specific version anyway for reasons.
It doesn’t bother me at all. That’s the joy of open source. I’ve got access to the source, I can fix bugs and add features if I want to. The project may not want my patches but I don’t need them to accept my patches in order to accomplish my goals. Like you said, it’s one of the things I’m allowed to do.
score 1 · canonical
When I see someone make the first claim, my trust in their writing drops as precipitously as if I realized it were LLM slop.
score 1 · canonical