[runarberg]

AI agents who review the slop created by other AI agents is not the answer here.

I much prefer a blanket ban on PRs and issues created by AI agents (which is what I personally do for my repos; so far I have closed one[1]). In fact I would love a github alternative which considers AI contributions to be a breach of their terms of use and ban any people who let AI agents loose on their platform.

1: https://github.com/runarberg/markdown-it-math/pull/48#issuec...

[parliament32]

I would kill for an LLM-free platform.

Personally I just stopped accepting public contributions entirely. File issues, sure, but no PRs apart from accounts I added who have contributed before the slopageddon started.

Maybe the whole web-of-trust idea will make a comeback for code contributions, it seems like a clean solution.

[margalabargala]

I tend to disagree.

I think the comparison to email spam is apt. The answer to that problem was automated spam filters.

Imagine the difficulty you might find interacting with the world if your inbox was set up such that all emails not literally written by a human were auto-deleted. No account recovery, no receipts, etc. Individuals might choose to do that for themselves but it's not the general case answer.

[sigbottle]

That's different though - those are services you explicitly agree to and sign up for, be it at checkout, be it at service signup time, be it because you are making a google account on the google platform.

For example, a github cicd automerge pipeline is still good.

[CapsAdmin]

One interesting workflow I've seen is that the project maintainer simply rewrites and implements the pull request themselves and closes the PR.

LuaJIT has operated this way since 2012, though with a thanks and mention in the commit message. It seems like a good way to filter out people who prioritizes leveling up their github profiles.

Something a little bit similar, when I was hosting a social game server we had mods. And players always beg for mod status. At first I tried naming the admin group something weird like sandals, but eventually people would ask if they could be sandals too.

What worked best in the end was just hiding it completely making regular players see mods as other regular players. (mods would see who is a mod though)

I would also personally never make someone who asks a mod as it's almost always a sign of wanting power for the sake if it. I would instead just passively observe behavior until I trusted the player and make them a mod. I would then tell them that I don't expect them to exercise their power, but would demote if I see abuse of power.

[Orphis]

But what about the good AI driven contributions though? Do you categorize all AI changes as slop by default or only the real bad ones that mix refactoring and tons of other unrelated changes with a fix?

Some can fix real issues, with a well targeted fix (not rewriting the world), well defined test and write up. If you accepted PRs before for other issues, you should be able to review and accept those too.

[mnahkies]

I think the litmus test is roughly "is this obviously AI created" - if it's a well crafted PR that doesn't do the things you mention, and solves a genuine issue in a sensible way then you'd not be able to tell.

The other part of the litmus test is "does the person submitting actually understand what they're submitting and why" - which is arguably not required for PRs that you'd otherwise accept, but since you have to put time and effort into determining whether a given contribution is ok to merge, it's common decency for the submitter to have done a self review first (AI or no AI)

[lelanthran]

> But what about the good AI driven contributions though?

Okay, who is going to wade through the noise to find the signal? You?

[ToucanLoucan]

> But what about the good AI driven contributions though?

If even a preponderance of AI driven contributions were good, there wouldn't be blog posts and announcements making HN's front page daily about how various OSS projects and/or prominent figures were figuring out how to filter them/exclude them entirely.

If AI code was good, there wouldn't be such a thrust among so many varying communities to remove it, or ignore it.

There is, because it isn't, and because maintainers are getting fed up with it. There are good PR's just like there are emails that aren't spam that get caught in spam filtering, but spam filtering is still the default position because to allow it all is onerous to the people involved.

I think the biggest issue is simply that these tools, like any labor-saving tool, are being marketed most heavily to people who do not know how to create software. "Write code even if you know nothing about writing code." "This will let people who aren't software engineers make software." "Democratize development." On and on.

This isn't even new, we've been dealing with this since I was a little one, back then we called them script kiddies. Now they're vibe coders and their existence continues to be a boil on the ass of proper software engineers. Instead of claude, you copied code off of Stack Overflow without understanding what it did, and often foot-bulleted yourself in the process.

[runarberg]

I have never gotten a good PR from an AI agent (that I know of) so I guess I’ll deal with it when it happens. I suspect I will still just reject it out of principal.

[AnimalMuppet]

Why do you ask me to do the categorizing? If you're sending me a PR, then you should be filtering the bad ones from the good. If you're just going to send me drive-by PRs, then I don't have time for you.

I mean, sure, I have to make the final determination. But you should not be sending me uncurated slop.