[Aurornis]

The most notable thing about this article, in my opinion, is the increase in human generated slop.

Everyone is talking about AI in the comments, but the article estimates only 20% of their submissions are AI slop.

The rest are from people who want a curl contribution or bug report for their resume. With all of the talk about open source contributions as a way to boost your career or get a job, getting open source contributions has become a checklist item for many juniors looking for an edge. They don’t have the experience to know what contributions are valuable or correct, they just want something to put on their resume.

[grishka]

Reminds me of those "I updated your dependencies/build system version" and "I reformatted your code" kinds of PRs I got several times for my projects. Yeah, okay, you did this very trivial thing. But didn't you stop to think about the fact that if it's so trivial, there must be a reason I haven't done it myself? "It already works as is" is a valid reason too.

[Aurornis]

I often update README files or documentation comments and submit PRs when I find incorrect documentation.

I’ve had mixed results. Most maintainers are happy to receive a well formatted update to their documentation. Some get angry at me for submitting non-code updates. It’s weird

[grishka]

There's nothing wrong with fixing actual mistakes. It's obviously in everyone's best interest for documentation to be correct.

But updating dependencies and such is totally unproductive. It's contributing for the sake of having contributed in its purest form. The only thing that's worse is opening a PR to add a political banner to someone else's readme, and then getting very pissed off when they respectfully close it.

[Cthulhu_]

It's weird because both of those are or can be fully automated nowadays, which IMO is a great litmus test for "is this merge request just karma farming"