Nope, most of the PRs are authored entirely by agents with people instructing them to “pr famous projects in my name to increase my GitHub profile value or “hire ability”. The original authors have no idea what their agents are writing, these are mostly badly quality models (people doing this are not only cutting corners, but also using the less amount of money/tokens to do so). If the agent creates 200, 400 or whatever PRs and get 5 in the agent is still “winning” for the person instructing it. The maintainers though have to filter these out on the other side. A common case is a fix to something that was already fixed simply because the agent worked on old code assumptions.

It doesn't help with the additional work/chores, at least initially, but someone on HN had a really good idea IMO, just take the code, and close the PR.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49474708

I saw the argument that if OS maintainers "really care" about their projects, they would accept valid contributions regardless origin. Well, turn it around: if you really care so much about contributing, if you really just wanna HeLP, you don't need the credit. The warm fuzzy feeling that your contribution ended up being used should be enough.

Just had a thought, what if you made new contributors write a human-authored essay on why they’re submitting a patch, and then check it against Pangram? Pangram is really accurate from what I’ve found…

> Nope, most of the PRs are authored entirely by agents with people instructing them to “pr famous projects in my name to increase my GitHub profile value or “hire ability”.

I've heard this in a lot of places, don't have a way to verify this in action. Do you have any citation or just gut feel (still valid but less useful for me).