| ▲ | siwatanejo 6 hours ago |
| While I understand the motivation for this change, I have to highlight something: GitHub's slogan 'social coding' is becoming more and more true these days. Now opensource will become a thing that only "influential" people can contribute to. We're back to nepotism, not meritocracy. Down hill we go. |
|
| ▲ | troupo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Now opensource will become a thing that only "influential" people can contribute to. No. Having access to a slop generator doesn't entitle you to acceptance to any and all open source projects. You're still responsible for the quality of your contributions. Something that is completely lost on bullshit artists. |
| |
| ▲ | siwatanejo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don't put words in my ~mouth~ (keyboard) that I didn't ~say~ (type), I'm not saying I want my contributions to be accepted on equal footing even if they are generated by AI. What I'm saying is that solving this problem this way is going to make opensource much worse. We need a better way, and I'm not sure which is the better way, sorry. | | |
| ▲ | dwaite 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your prior message could be taken that this was an elitist move, and not a move that is being taken by many different projects for survival with limited review capacity. LLMs in general change the balance of how much effort generating content takes, sometimes by orders of magnitude. They unfortunately do not significantly change how much effort it takes to understand and evaluate the quality of that content. The result is that the base value of a piece of content (including code) is plummeting. | |
| ▲ | duskdozer 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You aren't really contributing anything except funding to Anthropic/oai/MS/etc if you're sending genAI content. The better way will be fairly similar to the previous status quo: humans interacting with humans, with the change that there will be higher barriers to gaining access to the web of trust. | | |
| ▲ | siwatanejo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You aren't really contributing anything except funding to Anthropic/oai/MS/etc if you're sending genAI content. Why people keep saying that I'm advocating for AI use? I'm not happy with the decision of Ladybird maintainers, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to spam them with AI slop. |
| |
| ▲ | troupo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Opensource is already much worse and is drowning in slop. Until a better way is found (if it can be found), severely restricting contributions is the only sane response. And it has nothing to do with the perceived "only influential people can do it". You're always welcome to fork any and all projects and run your AI on those | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | drivingmenuts 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Now opensource will become a thing that only "influential" people can contribute to. We're back to nepotism, not meritocracy. Down hill we go. Or people can just start their own projects instead of working on someone else's. Many projects instead of potential large points of failure. |
| |
| ▲ | siwatanejo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know about you, but as for me, when I contribute to opensource it's because I find some improvement that makes the project better because it probably polishes some rough edge around a kind-of particular use case (that maybe few people face, but still, it makes the project better for them; it amplifies the range of usecases that it can span to). If everybody does the same with their small improvements, the project becomes better for everyone, but none of the contributors of these small changes would have time to embark on maintaining a fork. Mantaining a fork is hard work, not only because software breaks over time (dependencies going obsolete or insecure, builds stop working because of old toolkits), but also because not pulling the latest changes from master would mean that your fork gets stagnated (and thus not worth to run it). |
|
