I'd wager 99 % of the OSS the world runs on is people that never have cared about credit or building a portfolio.

What they do want, however, is to not have to spend time on the thousands of AI generated pull requests and bug reports.

▲

rpdillon 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Completely agree that low-value pull requests and bug reports are a problem, but that's not a problem with AI. That's a problem with people using GitHub and trying to do collaborative development in an ungated environment. Free software and open source are orthogonal to collaborative development, as we see with projects like SQLite, or AOSP, or Java, each of which impose their own gates for contribution, separate from the ability to generate code.

▲

matsemann 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry, but this seems like just moving the goalpost.

	▲	rpdillon 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I said people wanted credit more often than I had expected. You said "Way to straw man all counter arguments before they even got any." The current point you're making is (I think) that OSS devs don't want credit, they want to be free of spam. I, for example, host my free software on fossil and don't accept contributions at all. It's not that I don't want them, it's that I don't want the noise, so I feel like that's a valid way to distribute open source. But when I raise that, you're saying I'm moving the goalpost. I think the goalpost is in the same exact location as it has been for the entire discussion: open source authors that don't care about getting credit and want to distribute their free software can do so without any worry about AI. If your underlying point is that AI has lowered the barrier to entry for code submissions, making previously-viable approaches to collaborative development infeasible, that's completely fair, I just wasn't treating that as fundamental to open source development in the same way you were.