| ▲ | MBCook 7 hours ago |
| It’s starting to feel like we may need to go back to the model where you need to be invited to be able to submit code or PRs. The barrier is just too low now for popular projects. |
|
| ▲ | jonhohle 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s not just popular projects. On a small utility I have I received a PR that was more lines than the project had. I’m happy to be a good maintainer, but reviewing something that’s effectively an AI rewrite isn’t something I care to review and since I can’t vet it, can’t blindly accept it. |
| |
| ▲ | MBCook 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m sure it’s all over, I was assuming the smaller projects could deal with the handful of contributions. Something like a big emulator is very complex and has a LOT of motivated users who aren’t going to be able to make quality submissions. So they get it in volume where it may be nearly impossible to deal with. |
|
|
| ▲ | x-complexity 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Forks need to be normalized again. Logistically & brand-wise, they're messy to deal with, but they result in a "filter" of sorts that the original project can pick & choose to upstream back into their code. |
| |
| ▲ | overfeed 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Forks need to be normalized again No one's going to be trusting forks or new projects for a while. The bar for merely generating new code is now too low to give a meaningful signal. Reputation and longevity will likely be useful metrics, hence the AI pull-requests will continue to be opened against high-reputation projects that have strong brands. Not unlike Ethereums the switch from proof of work to proof if stake |
|
|
| ▲ | hsbauauvhabzb 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think some sort of reputation score would make more sense, assuming it’s possible to design one that can’t be easily faked |
| |
| ▲ | Groxx 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps something where you can build a graph of who invited whom so you could prune entire sections that act maliciously. One might even consider it a to be a web of connections which are built on (or torn down by the loss of) trust. Sounds futuristic. Maybe it's an NFT on an agentic blockchain for deep-sea solar farm mining? | | |
| ▲ | lobf 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Private torrent trackers apparently do this, and have done so for years. | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're sarcastically describing web-of-trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust Why are they doing that (i.e. being sarcastic)? Who knows. | | |
| ▲ | Groxx 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because it's by far the dominant strategy for distributed trust-ranking systems out there, with decades of research around it. Might as well look at the forest when realizing that it'd be nice if trees existed. And I don't think anyone actually trusts any major actor to verify anything, so a fully centralized system is likely out. Otherwise people would be hype about WorldCoin, instead of recognizing it for the stupendously malicious grift that it is. | | |
|
|
|
|
