"suspects".... that sounds error prone. And I read it like "we don't want AI generated stuff unless we can't tell the difference".

▲

terminalbraid 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's their project, they can run it how they like. If they lose out on valid contributions that's their loss.

People are never entitled to their contributions getting accepted to someone else's code base.

▲

JodieBenitez 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure. My point is that they will probably accept "AI" contributions anyway, without knowing it.

	▲	yulaow 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		These things are done not to block pr done with the help of ai, but to block the ai slops pr, aka those never reviewed, fully vibecoded, and with the submitter that didn't understand anything about the problem or the code, just trusted claude. The rule is general on purpose to allow the maintainer to freely remove whatever is very evident is just ai slop

▲

LauraMedia 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any PR will get the same quality review. It's just that they now have a fast lane so they don't have to invest that much time to review a PR they won't fix properly and/or support.

▲

yulaow 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

exactly, I for example don't care usually about false positives, in the very uncommon case it happens the pr creator can discuss and prove he actually understood the problem, the codebase, the project policy and how to explain his solution actually could work.

▲

eschaton 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How do they enforce that contributions aren’t copied and pasted from AGPLv3 or proprietary codebases? The honor system and intuition and occasionally flat out asking people.

Do you think sociopaths willing to lie about how they came up with a contribution are really that common?

▲

JodieBenitez 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Let me tell you a story: I use agents at work. Not to add more useless features, not in a let-loose way, not so that I can slack all day but to produce better output. Think performance optimizations, security fixes, better use of underlying frameworks, produce better documentation, get useful hints from the code base, that kind of thing. In a word, to produce objectively better software. that is my honor: giving the best I can.

Because AI is frowned upon where I work, I kept that under the radar. And I got nothing but praises for the good work, everybody loving it. Later I had the opportunity to port a piece of software from one language to another. LLMs are great for porting stuff when steered well. Again, nothing but praises for the amazing work done in a very short time. And this is where I tried to open a debate about AI by disclosing my tools and methods. And boom, suddenly I was evil. Praises gone. But still, none had the guts to throw the port to trash, because it's still very good. Hypocrisy.

So yes, call me sociopath if you like, but I will lie, produce better software and get the praises if I have to work in an environment that values tools and methods over results.

▲

nurbl 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't think there are any other aspects worth considering than the mere quality of the code produced?

	▲	JodieBenitez 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but these aspects are rarely brought up by my opponents. And we can discuss them ad lib, but there is no coming back for me.

▲

eschaton 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You should have been fired for cause, because the way you chose to work exposed your employer to substantial liability due to the “copyright laundering” nature of LLMs. But you prioritized feeling good over everything else. You’re a sociopath and you should be treated as one—a bad-faith actor only out for themselves, who cannot be trusted to collaborate within agreed-upon limits because you don’t think rules apply to you.

▲

dirkc 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't compromise your professional integrity by lying about how you work. Rather find a job where you don't need to lie about your use of AI if you can.

	▲	JodieBenitez 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		25 years ago I had to lie about using free software since it was also frowned upon. I even lied to my CTO at the time who wanted me to work completely in a Microsoft environment, with ASP and what not. Being kinda stubborn I did not comply and used only free software. When boss saw the result and the cost I got promoted. My integrity is fine.