[btilly]

ELO is shockingly easy to manipulate. For example there was a literal jail with a decent chess player in it. He created a pool of players who got great ELOs by beating him, then used them to boost his rating higher. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Given any manipulatable scheme, AI will figure out how to manipulate it. For the OP, what happens if a single AI manages to get through to contributor? Then it starts elevating other AIs to contributor, and we're off again. There doesn't have to be a purpose to this. Trolls will troll, and trolls armed with AI bots can devote endless energy to doing so. The more you work to keep them out, the more fun it becomes for them.

I wish I had an answer for that problem. But I don't.

[altairprime]

ELO is a bad fit because it requires competition between submitters; but if the idea is interpreted as “contributor karma score” or similar (not everyone’s familiar with the mathematical nature of ELO), then the way to close the loophole is to only consider voting inputs from the human project owner. This project chose to have people lie to a webform rather than lie to a git interface about using AI, so I don’t expect it will be particularly successful at inhibiting AI use by project-involved humans, but certainly it’ll squelch a lot of noise from unattended/passersby.

[atomflunder3000]

I think they were saying Elo system as kind of a general ranking system idea instead of the actual algorithm.

You could probably use some kind of pairwise ranking algorithm (like anything based on the Bradley-Terry model) to rate human vs. AI contributions, but that would take a lot of manual effort. Google is using it to (supposedly) improve their searching algorithms. They give testers two different versions and ask them what's better.

[chii]

fix this problem by make the rating value tied to some paid currency - a repo owner would have to pay for the PR, and that PR contributor will now have more currency than previously. In order to have said currency to pay, the repo owner would need to have contributed to another repo whose owner have currency.

The totality of someone's currency is their reputation.

Of course, now the decision becomes...who is the central currency issuer that creates it?

[lpghatguy]

It's the StackExchange model! This has bootstrapping issues, is hard to break into the community, and risks creating moderator cliques.

[hotstickyballs]

This is called proof of stake

[morkalork]

Reputation scores, review cartels. This all sounds familiar!

[20k]

>what happens if a single AI manages to get through to contributor

Then they'll get removed by the humans? Its about cutting down work, not about eliminating the work entirely

The current approach removes about 99% of their overhead it would seem. If they have to do a few manual interventions here and there, that seems like a huge win overall

[stronglikedan]

contributors being able to grant contributor to other users seems like a problem