← Back to context

Comment by autumnstwilight

4 days ago

>>> Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author?

>>> Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it.

Really sums the whole thing up...

15 comments

autumnstwilight

Reply
phendrenad2  3 days ago

This reminds me of the "good developers must be good at thinking at multiple levels of abstraction at the same time" quote. The things you notice about these AI kids is they didn't even do the bare minimum to reason about their PR from multiple angles. __Of course__ someone is going to ask why the copyright is there. Better have a good answer, or - locked, come back when you do. Really that simple.

j4coh  4 days ago

After having previously said "AI has a very deep understanding of how this code works. Please challenge me on this."

lambda_foo  4 days ago

Pretty much. I guess it’s open source but it’s not in the spirit of open source contribution.

Plus it puts the burden of reviewing the AI slop onto the project maintainers and the future maintenance is not the submitters problem. So you’ve generated lots of code using AI, nice work that’s faster for you but slower for everyone else around you.

  • skeledrew  4 days ago

    Another consideration here that hits both sides at once is that the maintainers on the project are few. So while it could be a great burden pushing generated code on them for review, it also seems a great burden to get new features done in the first place. So it boils down to the choice of dealing with generated code for X feature, or not having X feature for a long time, if ever.

    • swiftcoder  4 days ago

      > or not having X feature for a long time, if ever

      Given that the feature is already quite far into development (i.e. the implementation that the LLM copied), it doesn't seem like that is the case here

    • gexla  4 days ago

      Their issue seemed to be the process. They're setup for a certain flow. Jamming that flow breaks it. Wouldn't matter if it were AI or a sudden surge of interested developers. So, it's not a question of accepting or not accepting AI generated code, but rather changing the process. That in itself is time-consuming and carries potential risk.

      1 reply →