|
| ▲ | broodbucket 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You can but that doesn't help you keep the flood of contributions out when you don't have the time or resources to properly discern good from bad. Maintainers would rather have 10 good human authored patches than 100 patches from LLMs, even if 20 of them are good. Even if 50 of them are good, probably. |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | As if a rule against LLMs actually stops those sorts of spam contributions. The only thing it does is filter good contributors out, while you still have to deal with the bad ones. | | |
| ▲ | shakna 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It makes it easier to filter. Most LLM spam can be easily noticed. And those that aren't automatically filtered, can fairly easily be closed by the maintainer - when they don't have the weight to assess each on their validity. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sph 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Technology doesn’t exist in a vacuum, you need the consider the possibility it will be used for evil and the effect that might result from that. Far too many people dismiss LLM risks with ‘oh, if people just stop being gullible/greedy/lazy everything will be fine’, as if that is a sensible proposition. In fact, LLMs proliferate in exactly because people are gullible, greedy and lazy and it’s easier to write a prompt than do the hard work of architecting software. It is easier to vibe code than use them with care. It is easier to tell oneself ‘I will just accept this PR blindly, but I promise I will do a better job reviewing the next’ |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do consider the possibility it will be used for evil -- and then I ban evil. |
|
|
| ▲ | coldtea 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| But banning an entire technology is even better, as the potential for abuse and bad behavior is now scaled 1,000,000 times over. |
