I can understand where they come from. If most of the pull-requests were AI-coded, well, the maintainers are equally capable of prompting Claude Code themselves.

I think the whole game of software engineering, open source or not, has completely changed. A lump of code doesn't mean or imply the same thing as it did 2 years ago.

▲

dm_ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think this is the key point.

A few years ago, if I send a complex PR that compiles and passes tests, that implies a certain amount of time and cognitive investment on my part. It seems likely that I wouldn't invest that if I didn't also understand the codebase, the feature or bug I'm working on, etc.

Now, that understanding is roughly as expensive as before, but AI has vastly reduced the cost of generating the code that compiles and passes tests.

Probably-well-intentioned community members are happy to contribute the cheap thing( Claude Code tokens) but, because it's so cheap, it's not a good indicator they've contributed the expensive thing (human understanding).

	▲	dm_ 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Also, this paper seems relevant: https://www.nber.org/papers/w35275 "Writing Code vs. Shipping Code: Productivity Effects Across Generations of AI Coding Tools" As the FT summarizes, > They found an explosive impact at the top of this funnel — coders created or edited almost 300 per cent more files — but that boost was halved to 150 per cent by the time they got to the number of discrete pieces of work submitted for review, and that in turn shrunk fivefold to a roughly 30 per cent uplift in the number of full software releases. https://www.ft.com/content/8e9ae7a4-7209-4e2c-aa36-f3af77d6c... So as I wrote, AI vastly improves labor productivity on _coding_, but not nearly as much on code _review_ or other parts of the release pipeline. And, unfortunately, for many open source projects, it's easy for volunteers to send code for review, but hard for them to volunteer reviewing PRs, managing releases, etc.
	▲	winterbourne 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> that implies a certain amount of time and cognitive investment on my part Yes, this is the takeaway for me. A PR can no longer be a reasonable proof of work.

▲

hombre_fatal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The code just isn’t the main effort of work anymore. Anyone can generate the implementation, so it makes more sense than ever to instead hammer out the what, why, and how that underlies any code change.

I see all projects moving this direction. Makes more sense to hash out a plan together.

▲

satvikpendem 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As they say, just send me the prompt instead, at least that's more useful.

▲

rjh29 4 hours ago | parent [-]

For anything but the most trivial change, a prompt is not enough though. There's a long iterative process of generating the right code, reviewing it, testing it, experimenting with UX or design for maintainability, fixing bugs... even a predominantly AI-generated PR can capture a lot of value. But apparently trying to distinguish those from the 'one-shot' vibe coded PRs is too much work for the Ladybird team.

	▲	jeltz 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> But apparently trying to distinguish those from the 'one-shot' vibe coded PRs is too much work for the Ladybird team. Yes, that is exactly what this announcement is about. That it was too much work for them to tell those two apart.
	▲	m4rtink 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Migh as well just write the thing out yourself - you will learn something by doin that and it will be easier next time. :)
	▲	jeremyjh 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> But apparently trying to distinguish those from the 'one-shot' vibe coded PRs is too much work That is exactly the issue. Projects that are end-user applications - as opposed to libraries or development tools - probably see far more slop than actual work like you've described. The yields are too low for it to make any sense to try to figure out which is which, their time is better spent doing the work.

▲

asdaqopqkq 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yeah but they could get free token usage from the community

	▲	ATMLOTTOBEER 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When I contribute to OSS with AI I’m essentially engaging in a donation matching scheme where Anthropic matches 1 to 20 the dollar value invested (usually I can get ~2k of value per month on the $100 plan) in the open source project. So any project that doesn’t accept AI PRs is really missing out on significant investment
	▲	tmountain 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, but then it’s either an arduous manual review or incurring a bunch of token usage to review something that may be slop.

▲

vividfrier 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]