If the core issue was having too many contributions, wouldn't it have been a better idea to address that? Framed in this way, it looks like a scaling issue and not an AI issue.

▲

benrutter 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Framed in this way, it looks like a scaling issue and not an AI issue.

I don't know - we're ignoring that the number of relatively low quality contributions is increasing due to AI. But I also don't think "scaling" is the right way to think about it, it sounds like it's something they should be doing. I.e. we want AWS lambda to be able to scale horizontally to handle large amounts of load, but do we want an open source project to scale so that it merges hundreds of PRs a day? That sounds like more movement for the sake of it, when a lot of open source projects would benefit more from stability than from new features.

	▲	OroPla 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not saying scaling up is what the project wants to do, I'm saying that not wanting to handle more of the things you already do is a scaling issue. And I don't know whether that premise is true, either. They could be banning AI because they don't like AI. But if they are banning AI to solve a scaling issue, I'd feel that the approach is misguided.

▲

ajjahs 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]