It makes lots of sense to me.
Or a human will provide the fix?
I'd gladly take a bug report, sure, but then I'd fix the issues myself. I'd never allow LLM code to be merged.
Generating slop using LLMs takes seconds, has no human element, no work goes into it. Mistakes made by an LLM are excused without sincerity, without real learning, without consequence. I hate everything about that.
Why on earth would you force stuff on a party that has said they don't want that?
If I want to use an auto-complete then I can, and I will? Restricting that is as regressive as a project trying to specify that I write code from a specific country or… standing on my head.
Sure, if they want me to add a “I’m writing this standing on my head” message in the PR then I will… but I’m not.
Restricting this is their right, and it is not for you to attempt to overrule that right. Besides the fact that you do not oversee the consequences it also makes you an asshole.
They're not asking for you to write standing on your head, they are asking for you to author your contributions yourself.
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 itself, because that’s all there is.
But if they can’t enforce their boundaries, because they can’t tell the difference between AI code and non-AI code without being told, then their boundaries they made up are unenforceable nonsense.
About as nonsense and enforceable as asking me to code upside down.
- people can just say things
- when people say things, you don’t have to listen to them
- not listening to them doesn’t make you superior or more powerful than them
We can practice: I’d like you to always comment in uppercase letters from now on please. It’s my policy.
Boundaries - of all kinds - are not unenforceable nonsense, they are rights that you willingly and knowingly violate.
I would say people should be wary of any contributions whatsoever from a filthy fucking liar.
Nothing? Everything? Does it fucking matter? Assigning trust across a boundary like this is stupid, and that’s my point.
Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”?
That’s on you for stupidly assigning any trust to the author of the change. It’s the internet: nobody knows you’re a dog.
At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.
Sure, put out an international search warrant for xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx.
Many major projects now require a signed DCO with a real name. That can be a nickname if you have a reasonable online presence under that name, but generally it has to identify you as an individual.
So you wouldn't sign it as "xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx", but as "Tom Forbes (orf)".
And even if there won't be direct legal consequences, it'd certainly affect your ability to contribute to this or other projects in the future.
Why would I sign it as my real name? Does the DCO require ID verification? No? So it would be “Mr Ima Dog”.
People can lie in the internet, saying “oh but no they can’t because there’s a form they need to fill in!!” is supremely off topic nonsense.
(1) you would lie
(2) you fundamentally don't understand the concept of consent
> "I’ll make a change any way I choose, upright, sideways, using AI. My choice. Not theirs."
The fact that other people would lie is besides the point: those other people would get the exact same treatment if found out. Whether or not they would be found out is moot, it is the act of lying and ignoring consent that makes this what it is: asshole behavior. By extension anybody that practices this behavior is an asshole as well and by extension of that tying your own rep to people that would behave like that makes you an asshole and I highly doubt that that was your intention.
So now you've - over endless comments - shown that you fundamentally don't get this very important concept. Yes, people lie. But there are mechanisms for dealing with liars. Misrepresentation and fraud are serious things. Lawsuits, fines and in an extreme case jail, but on a more immediate level ostracizing. It makes you as a person into an undesirable. It also makes the world as a whole a worse place to live in, which is why such behavior is strongly discouraged, even if it is possible.
That's why we don't structurally go around clubbing old ladies over the head as a revenue model, not because we can't do it or because it would be acted upon by the law (that's for the few who don't get it) but because it is simply a bad thing to do. It is a matter of ethics. That's why if an open source project has a 'No AI' policy you either abide by the policy or you can expect massive backlash.
To think that you could do this and even should do this to make the point is as stupid as walking out and grabbing some old lady's hand bag to prove that it can be done: you are hurting an innocent to prove your point and it will cause a reaction that is at a minimum proportional to what you did and worst case you will be made an example of. This can be the proverbial career ending move. If you are Elon level rich and your inner asshole seeks a way out then yes, you could probably do it. But for normal folks such behavior is highly discouraged. Actions usually have consequences.
Finally: open source is a massive gift to society. The whole reason you can use AI in the first place is because that gift got abused in a way that open source contributors did not anticipate. If you're going around to pollute open source with AI contributions to effectively karma farm you have to wonder why you are so intent on doing that. Is it your purpose to destroy open source? Or is it just because you enjoy destroying stuff in general? I don't see any other options, this is a pathology and it would do you good to introspect on this for a bit instead of to respond with yet another ill conceived reply digging yourself in further. You've gone from 'mildly annoying' to 'wouldn't work with this person for any amount of money because they are a massive liability' in the space of 15 comments. I hope it was worth it to you.
Your comment would be fine without that first bit.
If the maintainers don't want to accept it, fine. Someone will eventually fork and advance and we move on. The Uncles can continue to play in their no AI playground, and show each other how nice their code is.
The world is moving on from the "AI is bad" crowd.
This is such an easily refuted assertion. Tell me, if something is wrong with the submitted code, who or what is responsible? If it's not "the LLM", then your opinion makes zero sense. The responsible party is always a human; therefore the responsible party rightfully deserves the credit whether it succeeds or fails.