And a similar behavior towards AI generated code, also mirrored by multiple AI policies around AI submitted patches/PRs.
Now question, say you have an idea about x product, or y improvement as a patch to a OSS, or whatever where AI can help you, then you
a) outsource to this team of people, local to you, same language, you can go and say hi to the person working on it, then don't review the output and put on github b) team is in your country, more difficult to go say hi, but you don't review the output and put on github c) same but the team is in another country d) same but the work is done by a contractor of a contractor, again you don't review and put it on github e) ask it to the free chatgpt version, don't review, post to github f) ask it to haiku on your 20$ claude account, don't review, post it to github g) ask it to claude mythos... the version that hacks stuff as has to be contained in a magnetic field air gapped... don't review the output and post it to github...
where does it start being slop and where is not? now, if instead of that, I review the output, read it, understand it, dogfeed it to myself to make sure it works, test it for 3 weeks, go through 100 rounds of polishing, and then post it to github... is it the same or not?
if not then AI is not the issue... the issue is hastily done stuff that's not reviewed, that you didn't guide, that you didn't test, that you didn't check EVEN if it has "the load bearing decision" 5 times.
IF the AI style writting is the issue, then polishing, ai or not, is not the problem.
NOT A PRO-AI DISCOURSE, if the thing dissapeared tonight, thanks GOD we will be able to buy RAM and gpus again at sane prices and stop the insane wave of quickly,hasted,PRs making it or not to the software we use.
bigyabai•33m ago
Github/Gitea issue with feature request; typically not slop
Github/Gitea PR with AI-implimented feature; typically slop
The issue is almost always drive-by contributions. A lot of programmers don't care about dependency creep, SLOC management, SDLC nicities, fragile CI/CD or multiplatform testing. Many FOSS maintainers and core contributors have a much higher standard for what they're willing to merge, and therefore reject slop judiciously. Same goes for one-man-band vibe coding outfits that want to ship a half-assed "native" app and charge money for it. Most of these people don't understand what the industry considers standard, even with AI helping them.
FWIW, there were slop PRs even before AI. Famously Paragon's NTFS driver was so bad that Linux refused to merge it because the costs outweighed any potential benefits. It ultimately came down to a difference in culture between FOSS and closed-source development.