> I personally wouldn't care if it was AI-generated or not, as long as the content fit the latter category.

The problem is that a lot of AI contributions are lazily produced without review. Those that have been properly reviewed for correctness (tested to ensure actually working with no obvious undesirable side effects, tweaked where needed to be readable and understandable, fitting the other guidelines of the project, etc) will be indiscernible from human-only contributions, but there are a lot of people who make no such effort so the majority are not nearly this good.

▲

mexicocitinluez 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> The problem is that a lot of AI contributions are lazily produced without review.

That sounds like a contributor problem. Not an AI problem.

I still don't understand a "no AI" policy whose only purpose is to weed out bad PRs. You should be weeding out bad PR's regardless of their source. I don't see why treating a purely human-authored, but bad, piece of code should be treated any differently than an AI-authored one.

All they've accomplished is creaking an environment where good code can't be submitted unless the submitter lies.

▲

lokar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s just a social thing. Two identically bad submissions have different social contexts.

▲

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

Probably because a human authored contribution, no matter how bad, can be trained to make it good and also improves the community.

▲

mexicocitinluez 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> can be trained to make it good and also improves the community.

AI can be trained. Also, AI can create code that improves the community. It's replies like this that leave me even more confused.

	▲	skydhash 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Human being trained is already proven (that’s how most maintainers came to be). Can you explain how AI can be trained in the above context?

▲

SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You should not be weeding out bad PRs regardless of their source! A pull request is a social artifact whose value and meaning is dependent on its author; bad PRs from a human author often mean things such as "I'd like to learn how this works and join your community". So it can be both satisfying and worthwhile to spend your effort on cleaning it up, even if it starts to take as much or even more effort than doing it yourself would have.

You're not the first person I've seen argue that authorship doesn't matter, so I don't want to blame you for it, but I really don't understand where that idea is coming from. To me it seems obviously wrong.

▲

KronisLV 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You should not be weeding out bad PRs regardless of their source! A pull request is a social artifact whose value and meaning is dependent on its author; bad PRs from a human author often mean things such as "I'd like to learn how this works and join your community".

I think the difference in perspective might come from the fact that to many people the code and features matters more than any community or the idea of participating in it. If it works, it works.

Or maybe they’re not even indifferent about the community, just upset at people throwing away working code.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The Godot maintainers have decided they don't support that perspective. In their words, they value "being cautious about feature creep" and "dedicated to high code quality"; they don't accept that all working code should be merged. Aspiring contributors who'd like to make a different tradeoff are of course free to make a fork. But then all of the stuff in their fork won't benefit from the participation of the community, which I suspect most such people do value even if they identify as a "code first" person.

▲

mexicocitinluez 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A pull request is a social artifact whose value and meaning is dependent on its author;

Says who? How can you say I'm categorically wrong when your entire point rests upon an opinion?

	▲	SpicyLemonZest an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Says the definition? I don't really understand your response. A pull request is a request from Alice (the author) that one of Barbara, Chris, Daniel (the maintainers) should pull her code into a particular branch. Many communities do have a norm that all authors are to be presumed equal, as long as they're prepared to take advice and learn from it. (That's where all experts start, after all.) That's the norm that Godot are trying to protect here. If they don't stop accepting AI-authored contributions, they worry, reviewers will start to implicitly load-shed by not reading PRs from people they don't recognize.

▲

danaris 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

So you can run your project that way.

You don't get to dictate that other people run their projects that way.

> A pull request is a social artifact whose value and meaning is dependent on its author

...and the project to which it is submitted.

SpicyLemonZest is not the sole arbiter of what PRs mean and stand for.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I was explaining why the Godot maintainers have chosen to enact the policy described in the source article, in response to a comment saying that they should not have enacted it. I don't understand why you think I'm dictating or arbitrating anything.