Comment by exasperaited
11 hours ago
> It’s posed to get significantly stronger
It's really not. Every project of any significance is now fending off AI submissions from people who have not the slightest fucking clue about what is involved in working on long-running, difficult projects or how offensive it is to just slather some slop on a bug report and demand it is given scrutiny.
Even at the 10,000 feet view it has wasted people's time because they have to sit down and have a policy discussion about whether to accept AI submissions, which involves people reheating a lot of anecdotal claims about productivity.
Having learned a bit about how to write compilers I know enough to know that I can guarantee you that an AI cannot help you solve the difficult problems that compiler-building tools and existing libraries cannot solve.
It's the same as it is with any topic: the tools exist and they could be improved, but instead we have people shoehorning AI bollocks into everything.
This isn't an AI issue. It is a care issue. People shouldn't submit PRs to project where they don't care enough to understand the project they are submitting to or the code they are submitting. This has always been a problem, there is nothing new. The thing that is new is more people can get to a point where they can submit regardless of their care or understanding. A lot of people are trying to gild their resume by saying they contributed to a project. Blaming AI is blaming the wrong problem. AI is a a tool like a spreadsheet. Project owners should instead be working ways to filter out careless code more efficiently.
This is an AI issue because people, including the developers of AI tools, don't care enough.
The Tragedy Of The Commons is always about this: people want what they want, and they do not care to prevent the tragedy, if they even recognise it.
> Project owners should instead be working ways to filter out careless code more efficiently.
Great. So the industry creates a burden and then forces people to deal with it — I guess it's an opportunity to sell some AI detection tools.
Sounds like a lot of FUD to me — if major projects balk at the emergence of new classes of tools, perhaps the management strategy wasn’t resilient in the first place?
Further: sitting down to discuss how your project will adapt to change is never a waste of time, I’m surprised you stated it like that.
In such a setting, you’re working within a trusted party — and for a major project, that likely means extremely competent maintainers and contributors.
I don’t think these people will have any difficulty adapting to the usage of these tools …
> Further: sitting down to discuss how your project will adapt to change is never a waste of time, I’m surprised you stated it like that.
It is a waste of time for large-scale volunteer-led projects who now have to deal with tons of shit — when the very topic is "how do we fend off this stuff that we do not want, because our project relies on much deeper knowledge than these submissions ever demonstrate?"
yeah we are getting lots of "I don't know how to do this and AI gave me this code that doesn't work, can you fix it" or "AI said it can do this" and the feature doesn't exist... some people will even argue and say "but AI said it doesn't take long, why won't you add it"
It weaponises incompetence, carelessness and arrogance at every turn.
AI, to me, is a character test: I'm regularly fascinated by finding out who fails it.
For example, in my personal life I have been treated to AI-generated comms from someone that I would never have expected it from. They don't know I know, and they don't know that I think less of them, and I always will.