8 ms·

> I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR. I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI. I think you d

> I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR. I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI. I think you do care, you are only thinking about the happy path where someone uses a little AI to draft a well constructed PR. There's a lot ways AI can be used to quickly overwhelm a project maintainer.

Waterluvian 1y ago
In that case a more correct rule (and probably one that can be automatically enforced) for that issue is a max number of PRs or opened issues per account.
- RossBencina 1y ago
  I think this is sane, although possibly not sufficient. Asking people to self-disclose AI usage is not going shield maintainers from a flood of undisclosed AI submissions.
oceanplexian 1y ago
> I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI. Then perhaps the way you contribute, review, and accept code is fundamentally wrong and needs to change with the times. It may be that technologies like Github PRs and other VCS patterns are literally obsolete. We've done this before throughout many cycles of technology, and these are the questions we need to ask ourselves as engineers, not stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's 2019.
- whatevertrevor 1y ago
  I don't think throwing out the concept of code reviews and version control is the correct response to a purported rise in low-effort high-volume patches. If anything it's even more required.
  - oblio 1y ago
    Heck, let's throw out QA, too :-))
- kelvinjps10 1y ago
  Why it's incorrect? And what would be the new way? AI to review the changes of AI?
  - oceanplexian 1y ago
    If machines can iterate faster than humans, we'll need machines to do the reviewing; that means the testing/QA will be done perhaps by machines which will operate on a spec similar to what Amazon is doing with Kilo. Before PR's existed we passed around code changes via email. Before containers we installed software on bare metal servers. And before search engines we used message boards. It's not unfathomable that the whole idea of how we contribute and collaborate changes as well. Actually that is likely going to be the /least/ shocking thing in the next few years if acceleration happens (i.e. The entire OS is an LLM that renders pixels, for example)
- ivanche 1y ago
  You're free to invent a better way, popularize it and become a millionaire.

Waterluvian 1y ago

In that case a more correct rule (and probably one that can be automatically enforced) for that issue is a max number of PRs or opened issues per account.

RossBencina 1y ago
I think this is sane, although possibly not sufficient. Asking people to self-disclose AI usage is not going shield maintainers from a flood of undisclosed AI submissions.

oceanplexian 1y ago

> I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI. Then perhaps the way you contribute, review, and accept code is fundamentally wrong and needs to change with the times. It may be that technologies like Github PRs and other VCS patterns are literally obsolete. We've done this before throughout many cycles of technology, and these are the questions we need to ask ourselves as engineers, not stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's 2019.

whatevertrevor 1y ago
I don't think throwing out the concept of code reviews and version control is the correct response to a purported rise in low-effort high-volume patches. If anything it's even more required.
- oblio 1y ago
  Heck, let's throw out QA, too :-))
kelvinjps10 1y ago
Why it's incorrect? And what would be the new way? AI to review the changes of AI?
- oceanplexian 1y ago
  If machines can iterate faster than humans, we'll need machines to do the reviewing; that means the testing/QA will be done perhaps by machines which will operate on a spec similar to what Amazon is doing with Kilo. Before PR's existed we passed around code changes via email. Before containers we installed software on bare metal servers. And before search engines we used message boards. It's not unfathomable that the whole idea of how we contribute and collaborate changes as well. Actually that is likely going to be the /least/ shocking thing in the next few years if acceleration happens (i.e. The entire OS is an LLM that renders pixels, for example)
ivanche 1y ago
You're free to invent a better way, popularize it and become a millionaire.