PR spam is a major problems for repo that run bounties. Maybe GitHub should temporarily block accounts from raising PRs if like 95%+ of them are getting rejected.

▲

microtonal 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I feel like GitHub should have a system where you can give out tokens that are valid for e.g. 1 PR. If someone shows to engage in meaningful discussion and has a good idea to address an issue/feature, you initially give them one PR token. If the PR is of good quality, you can give them a few more, until they are contributors that can just create PRs as they like.

A similar system would be nice for issues, though I'm not sure what it'd look like if issues are the springboard for contributing PRs.

Not likely to ever happen (as others said), GitHub/MS want to sell CoPilot subscriptions/tokens and LLM-generated PRs are a part of that business model.

	▲	pbhjpbhj an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You could use a "OTP" to provide this: give out tokens ("OTP"), anyone with that token can submit, keep a record of the user (eg github username, email address) and token, run a bot to delete submissions that don't have a valid token, check the token+user pair, if there is a mismatch blacklist the user that token was given to whilst removing the PR.
	▲	ZeWaka 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		My community does something vaguely similar, where you get credit for having bugfix PRs merged, and it's deducted when you get feature PRs merged.

▲

hiccuphippo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GitHub has not incentive for blocking AI. It's like asking an ad company to build an adblocker into their browser.

▲

rvnx 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's called Brave

▲

smaudet 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is not chrome and still has ads...(Ironically).

The issue here is the core model is broken (misaligned incentives). That's not something you are going to fix with a github "downstream". A token system could help but it's easy to imagine ways that could be gamed, if not implemented well.

	▲	rvnx 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ads are the main business model of browsers. If search ads are blocked on search engines, then there is no revenue for the browser. It's that simple (on top of that Brave has other revenues, but the majority is search ads). So it's a game of hoping that the majority won't change the default. This is the main reason Brave does not block search ads specifically by default, but still block the other ads. Blocking the other ads there are no consequences, since anyway this revenue is not shared back to the browser. This is why the business model of Brave is cynical. -> It's the same model as AdBlock and the "Acceptable Ads" (block all ads, except the acceptable ads, unless you disallow them)

▲

cdrnsf 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GitHub and Microsoft are actively contributing to the problem, why would they admit fault?

▲

marginalx 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Problem is the bots can create any number of github accounts and continue spamming. Though this would be a good simple defense to start with.

▲

moraesc an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]