[whilenot-dev]

> Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all?

Are you leaving the third-party aspect out of your question on purpose?

Not GP but for me, it pretty much boils down to the comment from Mason[0]: "If I wanted an LLM to generate [...] unreviewed code [...], I could do it myself."

To put it bluntly, everybody can generate code via LLMs and writing code isn't what defines the dominant work of an existing project anymore, as the write/verify-balance shifts to become verify-heavy. Who's better equipped to verify generated code than the maintainers themselves?

Instead of prompting LLMs for a feature, one could request the desired feature from the maintainers in the issue tracker and let them decide whether they want to generate the code via LLMs or not, discuss strategies etc. Whether the maintainers will use their time for reviews should remain their choice, and their choice only - anyone besides the maintainers should have no say in this.

There's also the cultural problem where the review efforts are non-/underrepresented in any contemporary VCS, and the amount of merged code grants for a higher authority over a repository than any time spent doing reviews or verification (the Linux kernel might be an exception here?). We might need to rethink that approach moving forward.

[0]: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ai-generated-enhancements-...

[joelreymont]

I'm strictly talking about the 10-line Zig PR above.

Well-documented and tested.

[whilenot-dev]

That's certainly a way to avoid questions... I mean sure, but everybody else is talking about how your humongous PRs are a burden to review.

[joelreymont]

Which is something I agreed with and apologized for, and admitted was somewhat of a PR stunt.

Now, what's your question?

[globnomulous]

> admitted was somewhat of a PR stunt.

You should be blocked, banned, and ignored.

> Now, what was your question?

Your attitude stinks. So does your complete lack of consideration for others.

[umanwizard]

You are admitting to wasting people’s time on purpose and then can’t understand why they don’t want to deal with you or give you the benefit of the doubt in the future?

[globnomulous]

It's worth asking yourself something: people have written substantial responses to your questions in this thread. Here you answered four paragraphs with two fucking lines referencing and repeating what you've already said. How do you expect someone to react? How can you expect anybody to take seriously anything you say, write, or commit when you obviously have so little ability, or willingness, to engage with others in a manner that shows respect and thought?

I really, truly don't understand. This isn't just about manners, mores, or self-reflection. The inability or unwillingness to think about your behavior or its likely reception are stupefying.

You need to stop 'contribiting' to public projects and stop talking to people in forums until you figure this stuff out.

[edstarch]

>I really, truly don't understand. This isn't just about manners, mores, or self-reflection. The inability or unwillingness to think about your behavior or its likely reception are stupefying.

Shower thought: what does a typical conversation with an LLM look like? You ask it a question, or you give a command. The model spends some time writing a large wall of text, or performing some large amount of work, probably asks some follow up questions. Most of the output is repetitive slop so the user scans for the direct answer to the question, or checks if the tests work, promptly ignores the follow-ups and proceeds to the next task.

Then the user goes to an online forum and carries on behaving the same way: all posts are instrumental, all of the replies are just directing, shepherding, shaping and cajoling the other users to his desired end (giving him recognition and a job).

I'm probably reading too much into this one dude but perhaps daily interaction with LLMs also changes how one interacts with other text based entities in their lives.

[joelreymont]

I'll gladly discuss at length things that are near and dear to my heart.

Facing random people in the public court of opinion is not one of them!

Also, there's long-form writing in my blog posts, Twitter and Reddit.

[aiahs]

Well if you wanna contribute (at least as a proxy) to OSS, you need to deal with people and make them want to deal with you. If you don't do that, no PR, regardless of how perfect it is, will ever be accepted. If you're so sure that your strategy for the future of development is correct, then prove it by building your own project, where you can fully decide which contributions are accepted, even those which are 100% ai generated. This should be easy, right? Once your project gains wide spread adoption, you can show everybody that you've been right all along. Until then, it's just empty talk.

[LoganDark]

That's exactly their plan, it seems.

[joelreymont]

Remind me please, when did I sign up to meet your expectations?

[globnomulous]

My expectations are those of any reasonable, sensible person who has a modicum of software-development experience and any manners at all.

Incidentally, my expectations are also exactly the same as every other person who has commented on your PRs and contributions to discussion.

My expectations, lastly, are those of someone who evaluates job candidates and casts votes for and against hiring for my team.

Your website says repeatedly that you're open to work. Not only would I not hire you; I would do everything in my power to keep you out of my company and off my team. I'd wager good money that many others in this thread would, too.

If you have a problem with my expectations, you have a problem not with my expectations but with your own poor social skills and lack of professional judgment.