← Back to context Comment by skeledrew 3 days ago Pretty much what this ensures. Just that the "developer" is a LLM agent. 2 comments skeledrew Reply lou1306 3 days ago Yeah except that the agent cannot be held accountable if its fix is crap, or if it went off-track mid-fix. skeledrew 3 days ago Pretty straight-forward solution: donors or maintainers don't use the service if it isn't good. But the maintainer is "accountable" (to the extent one maintaining a OSS project is) as they're the one actually providing the prompts and doing QA.
lou1306 3 days ago Yeah except that the agent cannot be held accountable if its fix is crap, or if it went off-track mid-fix. skeledrew 3 days ago Pretty straight-forward solution: donors or maintainers don't use the service if it isn't good. But the maintainer is "accountable" (to the extent one maintaining a OSS project is) as they're the one actually providing the prompts and doing QA.
skeledrew 3 days ago Pretty straight-forward solution: donors or maintainers don't use the service if it isn't good. But the maintainer is "accountable" (to the extent one maintaining a OSS project is) as they're the one actually providing the prompts and doing QA.
Yeah except that the agent cannot be held accountable if its fix is crap, or if it went off-track mid-fix.
Pretty straight-forward solution: donors or maintainers don't use the service if it isn't good. But the maintainer is "accountable" (to the extent one maintaining a OSS project is) as they're the one actually providing the prompts and doing QA.