Sure, but I think we should judiciously avoid the false equivalence yielded by only looking at this on a developer-by-developer basis, rather than systemically. The truth is that in practice, AI is not a neutral force. Obviously AI can enhance the output of smart, experienced developers and improve the efficiency of code reviews, mitigating the effects of garbage PRs. However, it increases the percentage of PRs contributed by entirely inexperienced and/or not-smart devs from zero to, potentially, the majority. It entirely removes the barriers inherent to coding that kept Dunning-Krueger cases from submitting ill-conceived or poorly constructed changes— actually getting them to run in some way, even poorly. That makes them much more difficult to distinguish from well-constructed PRs than those from, say, someone cargo-culting code from tutorials.

Moreover, as these tools become more expensive, people with money to blow on tokens will be able to drown maintainers that don’t have enough token-cash to help them deal with it. People see this as mostly a matter of time and energy, but I reckon it will soon be a financial issue.

▲

abirch 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I see AI as a barrier remover. Unfortunately some barriers are good or minimally necessary.

I think we'll need to revert to artificial barriers such as bonds, e.g., if you want to do a PR to my repository you need to pay a 10 dollar bond. If the PR is good and I want future PRs, you keep your bond. If it's slop and spam, I get 10 dollars for my time.

▲

applfanboysbgon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is entirely too much friction in the wrong place. Public open source will simply die before a system like that ever becomes the norm.

The previous barriers worked because they were organically perfectly in line with a contributor's internal incentives. A contributor gains very little benefit from submitting a patch; the likelihood is infinitesimally small they'll ever get any career advancement, financial recompense, or even much community recognition for it. At most, it shifts the burden of maintaining the code they're contributing from themselves to the community / long-term maintainers. The real incentive for a contributor was making the patch, because they get to see the feature or fix they want made for the software. The previous barriers were in making the patch, and contributors would overcome that friction to gain the benefit of having the patch they want. Moving the barrier to merely submitting the patch after it has already been made will simply result in people not bothering, because there is very little incentivizing them to deal with the friction.

	▲	abirch 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't disagree, where is the right place for the friction?

▲

leoc 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A couple of alternatives are:

1) more reliance on systems to track reputation across projects. I'm sure Microsoft, in the form of GitHub, will love to sell you a partial fix to the same problems it so enthusiastically helped to create. But there are the familiar problems of surveillance, identity theft, office politics, and system-gaming, and it doesn't on its own offer an onramp for new players.

2) in-person coding tests at the same Pearson test centres where people take most of their Cisco (and accounting, and ...) exams today. Not as expensive or inconvenient as you might think, but not the cheapest and easiest, and it certainly has the same concerns re. surveillance and identity theft

▲

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

I agree with the bond in theory, but that would entirely stop contributions from people in economies where a shady maintainer could keep their code, and their weekly food budget.

▲

voidmain0001 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or create pull requests and earn crypto!

https://gitearn.vercel.app/

https://gitreward.com/

▲

Forgeties79 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We already have trouble with people maintaining open source projects without getting paid, now you want people to pay for the privilege to participate in free work?

▲

abirch 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a bond not a fee. If the maintainer feels that it's spam, they keep the bond. If they feel like it's not, they leave it.

	▲	Forgeties79 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That sounds like a massive headache for maintainers and opportunity for people to cry foul. That gets messy so fast.