> But this can only be a starting point to develop a better way to handle low quality input.

Great! So while the AI vendors are writing free tools to automatically check for low-quality input (surely they are working on that, right?), what do you propose projects do which isn't either banning all obviously-AI contributions due to the good ones being near-impossible to quickly tell apart from slop, or asking volunteers to dig through mountains of shit to find tiny nuggets of gold?

▲

Propelloni 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Nothing changed. Put issues on the queue. Work through the queue in your own time.

Just because your queue grows longer, doesn't mean you have to process more issues in the same time now. It is a FOSS/OSS project, you owe nothing to anybody.

	▲	crote an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What changed is that your queue used to be 75% valuable contributions / 20% easy-to-tell garbage / 5% hard-to-tell garbage, but is now 90% hard-to-tell garbage / 5% easy-to-tell garbage / 5% valuable contributions. Your review-minutes-per-merged-contribution has exploded, and your backlog is now growing faster than you can ever dream of processing it. If you don't want to drown, your only option is to do the BigCorp thing of setting it to auto-close after X months and hope important stuff is brought up often enough that it'll catch your eye during the few hours it lives on page 1. You might be okay with this at your day job, but it tends to be a bit of a different story when it is a hobby project you do for fun. > It is a FOSS/OSS project, you owe nothing to anybody. Correct. Which is exactly why many of them are banning AI-generated contributions, and vibecoders shouldn't be complaining about them not being welcomed with open arms.