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.

That's why I'm not super optimistic. Even pre-AI and tech slump there were talks about how hard it may be to replace the old guard maintaining these open source initiatives. Now...

>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.

When care leaves, the entire commons starts to fall apart. New talent doesn't come in. Old talent won't put up with it and retire out of the scene. They already have so much work to do, needing to add in non-development work to make better spam filters may very well be the final stray.

Even when the careless leave, it won't bring back the talent lost. Directing the blame onto the sure won't do that.

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.