That’s the positive case IMO - a human, you, remain responsible for the fix. It doesn’t matter if AI helped.

The negative case are free running OpenClaw slop cannons that could even be malicious.

I agree, but that's assuming the project accepts AI generated code, of course. Especially around the legality of accepting commits written by an AI trained on god knows what dataset.

	▲	debarshri 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We have been doing this lately; when we hit a roadblock with open source, we run Claude code for fixing OSS issues and contributing back. We genuinely put effort into testing it out thoroughly. We don't want to bother maintainers, as they can focus on more important issues. I think a lot of tail-end issues and bugs can be addressed in OSS. We leave it up to the maintainers to accept the PR or not, but we solve our problems as we thoroughly test the changes.