To the issue of AI submitted patches being more of a burden than a boon, many projects have decided to stop accepting AI-generated solutioning:

https://blog.devgenius.io/open-source-projects-are-now-banni...

These are just a few examples. There are more that google can supply.

▲

logicprog 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

According to Willy Tarreau[0] and Greg Kroah-Hartman[1], this trend has recently significantly reversed, at least form the reports they've been seeing on the Linux kernel. The creator of curl, Daniel Steinberg, before that broader transition, also found the reports generated by LLM-powered but more sophisticated vuln research tools useful[2] and the guy who actually ran those tools found "They have low false positive rates."[3]

Additionally, there was no mention in the talk by the guy who found the vuln discussed in the TFA of what the false positive rate was, or that he had to sift through the reports because it was mostly slop — or whether he was doing it out of courtesy. Additionally, he said he found only several hundred, iirc, not "thousands." All he said was:

"I have so many bugs in the Linux kernel that I can’t report because I haven’t validated them yet… I’m not going to send [the Linux kernel maintainers] potential slop, but this means I now have several hundred crashes that they haven’t seen because I haven’t had time to check them." (TFA)

He quite evidently didn't have to sift through thousands, or spend months, to find this one, either.

[0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/1065620/ [1]: https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/26/greg_kroahhartman_ai_... [2]: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/2/curl/p [3]: https://joshua.hu/llm-engineer-review-sast-security-ai-tools...

▲

13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

literalAardvark 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, they haven't. Read the ai slop you posted carefully.

It's a policy update that enables maintainers to ignore low effort "contributions" that come from untrusted people in order to reduce reviewing workload.

An Eternal September problem, kind of.

▲

coldtea 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Didn't you just restate what the parent claimed?

▲

cwillu 12 hours ago | parent [-]

No, that's not at all the same thing: ai-generated contributions from people with a track record for useful contributions are still accepted.

▲

dpark 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right. AI submissions are so burdensome that they have had to refuse them from all except a small set of known contributors.

The fact that there’s a small carve out for a specific set of contributors in no way disputes what Supermancho claimed.

▲

phanimahesh 12 hours ago | parent [-]

A powertool that needs discretion and good judgement to be used well is being restricted to people with a track record of displaying good judgement. I see nothing wrong here.

AI enables volume, which is a problem. But it is also a useful tool. Does it increase review burden? Yes. Is it excessively wasteful energy wise? Yes. Should we avoid it? Probably no. We have to be pragmatic, and learn to use the tools responsibly.

▲

dpark 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I never said anything is wrong with the policy. Or with the tool use for that matter.

This whole chain was one person saying “AI is creating such a burden that projects are having to ban it”, someone else being willfully obtuse and saying “nuh uh, they’re actually still letting a very restricted set of people use it”, and now an increasingly tangential series of comments.

▲

literalAardvark 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I feel like you're still failing to grasp the point.

The only difference is that before AI the number of low effort PRs was limited by the number of people who are both lazy and know enough programming, which is a small set because a person is very unlikely to be both.

Now it's limited to people who are lazy and can run ollama with a 5M model, which is a much larger set.

It's not an AI code problem by itself. AI can make good enough code.

It's a denial of service by the lazy against the reviewers, which is a very very different problem.

	▲	dpark 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No one is missing your point. The issue is that you are responding a point no one made. The grounding premise of this comment chain was “AI submitted patches being more of a burden than a boon”. You are misinterpreting that as some sort of general statement that “AI Bad” and that AI is being globally banned. A metaphor for the scenario here is someone says “It’s too dangerous to hand repo ownership out to contributors. Projects aren’t doing that anymore.” And someone else comes in to say “That’s not true! There are still repo owners. They are just limiting it to a select group now!” This statement of fact is only an interesting rebut if you misinterpret the first statement to say that no one will own the repo because repo ownership is fundamentally bad. > It's a denial of service by the lazy against the reviewers, which is a very very different problem. And it is AI enabling this behavior. Which was the premise above.

▲

coldtea 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, but technically no different than "good contributions from humans are still accepted, AI slop can fuck off".

Since the onus falls on those "people with a track record for useful contributions" to verify, design tastefully, test and ensure those contributions are good enough to submit - not on the AI they happen to be using.

If it fell on the AI they're using, then any random guy using the same AI would be accepted.