"Good to merge? Test suite passes locally?" is perfectly valid English. You need to make sure that the bot is configured to not insist on arbitrary prescriptivist style guides that nobody cares about.
And NGI like a human would be given this task and consider the spirit of the law, the goal we want to acheive, and enforce it to reach that. The next token AI doesnt model that. It just predicts the next token, and understanding the spirit of the law does not seem to be in the emergent capabilities of that
I think LLMs are actually great for catching things like this, and you generally don't need some higher-level understanding about the goals involved to notice the ambiguity. My point wasn't that bots shouldn't be used like this, just that they need to be given the right instructions.
But yeah the bot needs to loosen the boundary a bit there
https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/7lkgdk/video_game_hu...
Our Slack channel is also completely slopped to the point it's mostly bot conversations constantly spamming about review reminders, pull request statuses, and other useless info you can just look up yourself if you need it.
The signal to noise ratio is to the point where I just ignore everything.
I kept reading and reading and the "violation of our guidelines" phrase wasn't appearing, so I got bored
I don't know this particular project but seeing threads like this kill any motivation to contribute.
"We are a fast moving start up (even at 3-4 years old), we believe in moving fast and breaking things ... That's why we don't do code reviews or unit tests.. we just edit live running code and restart the server"
Vs
"This one line change needs 4 -5 commits to add feature flags,unit tests, integration tests - all to be reviewed by different teams and wait 1-2 months to be deployed properly to production"
I feel this is a needlessly obtuse statement. I'll explain you why, as I've worked professionally with frontend development. From your comment it seems you don't have that type of context.
The text that is expected to feature in a UI element is a critical factor in cross cutting concerns such as product management and UX design, and it involves things like internationalization and accessibility support. This means that if you change a line of text, it needs to be translated to all supported languages, and the translation needs to meet usability and GUI requirements. This check needs to be done in each and every single locale supported.
I can give you a very concrete example. Once I was tasked with changing a single line of text in a button featured in a dialog. It turns out the french translation ended up being too long that forced line breaks. The UI framework didn't handled those line breaks well and reflowed the whole UI, causing a huge mess. This required new translation requests, but it turned out that the new translations were too vague and ambiguous. Product Managers got involved because the french translation resulted in poor user experience. Ultimately the whole dialog was redesigned.
But to you it's just a text on a single button, isn't it?
Shouldn't automation be somewhat useful? All these bot comments — do they really bring more value than they create distractions?
> Antiwork emerged from Gumroad's mission to automate repetitive tasks. In 2025, we're taking a bold step by open-sourcing our entire suite of tools that helped run and scale Gumroad. We believe in making powerful automation accessible to everyone.
So yeah, it does look like they bring value for genuinely more reliable code.
Some of the commit descriptions: "fix", "fixes", "clean up".
How is that self-service?
+ const safeToken = typeof token === "string" && token.length > 0 && token.length < 256 ? token : "";
> …
> Your expertise about the system's constraints helps provide important context that static analysis tools can't capture.
So much fawning bullshit bloating the message and the token count. I think this might be the thing with LLMs I dislike most.
Suggestion for prompt writers: “Don’t waste tokens. Keep messages succinct and direct.”
Fuck off.
Dear humans who advocated for installing the bot, let me use anodyne, US corporate bullshit language so you'll understand:
Your bot does not add value. Get rid of it, before it drives out all voluntary contributors.
Mathematicians use calculators, and so too do elementary school students, and grocery store clerks, and civil engineers. What each person needs from a calculator can be similar, but would you give a graphing calculator to the store clerk and expect them to be more "productive?"
Admittedly, my metaphor is leaky—and I also can't comment on the participants of the PR—but after reading the comments and the code itself, I'm getting a lot of "here’s a new calculator with a bunch of graphing functions, trigonometric menus, and poem generators—now go do the basic arithmetic you were already doing, but you work for the calculator now" vibes.
Said another way, it took me a lot more time and effort to understand what the bots were saying and if I agreed, than it did for me to formulate my own thoughts and questions.
Like the saying goes, "the best calculator is the one you have with you," and I'd much rather just use my own.
slacktivism123•3h ago
When
https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pull/427#issuecomment-30...
results in
https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pull/427#issuecomment-30...
More incredible examples where a LLM flags contributors' pull requests because their comments contain minor grammar errors:
https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pulls?q="our+contributin...
samrus•3h ago
WesolyKubeczek•3h ago