[jerf]

"(It’s famously not well capable of sounding human)"

Rather than a binary, I prefer to measure the question of "how much text does it take to be reasonably sure that it's an AI?"

By that metric, it is getting better at a reasonable pace. People are also getting better at prompting their AIs to write in something other than the default LLM style. If you think you're good at picking up that style, you probably are. But it's a lot harder to pick up AIs when they're fed a style sample. You wrote in the default AI style, and yeah, most of us have twigged to that by the end of your couple of short sentences. But feed the AI a style sample and it can definitely make it two sentences without every one realizing it's AI.

[Mabusto]

I think you first need to make an assumption of good faith on the submitter’s part. Yes, someone actively hostile to a repo and trying to sneak in changes will be successful, they can just prompt around the challenge.

I think the bigger picture is there won’t be one catch-all solution and we’ll need to embrace the Swiss cheese model from the world of aviation safety, this is just a suggestion for one layer.

It raises the stakes though. Getting challenged for an AI slop PR isn’t great, but ok, try and redeem yourself. Getting caught trying to cheat that challenge, you might as well just close down your account, like what is the point of even spending tokens to do this? These slop PRs are just people trying to pad their GitHub profiles.

[overgard]

I mean, yeah, you can give it style guidelines, but if someone's goal is "mislead people into thinking a person wrote this" then they should really be reevaluating their values.