zlacker

[return to "AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions"]
1. Waterl+A3[view] [source] 2025-08-21 19:07:52
>>freeto+(OP)
I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”

◧◩
2. armcha+Un[view] [source] 2025-08-21 21:01:51
>>Waterl+A3
Agreed. As someone who uses AI (completion and Claude Code), I'll disclose whenever asked. But I disagree that it's "common courtesy" when not explicitly asked; since many people (including myself) don't mind and probably assume some AI, and it adds distraction (another useless small indicator; vaguely like dependabot, in that it steals my attention but ultimately I don't care).
◧◩◪
3. ants_e+mG[view] [source] 2025-08-21 23:02:15
>>armcha+Un
If you don't disclose the use of

- books

- search engines

- stack overflow

- talking to a coworker

then it's not clear why you would have to disclose talking to an AI.

Generally speaking, when someone uses the word "slop" when talking about AI it's a signal to me that they've been sucked into a culture war and to discount what they say about AI.

It's of course the maintainer's right to take part in a culture war, but it's a useful way to filter out who's paying attention vs who's playing for a team. Like when you meet someone at a party and they bring up some politician you've barely heard of but who their team has vilified.

◧◩◪◨
4. latexr+GL[view] [source] 2025-08-21 23:40:17
>>ants_e+mG
> then it's not clear why you would have to disclose talking to an AI.

It’s explained right there in the PR:

> The disclosure is to help maintainers assess how much attention to give a PR. While we aren't obligated to in any way, I try to assist inexperienced contributors and coach them to the finish line, because getting a PR accepted is an achievement to be proud of. But if it's just an AI on the other side, I don't need to put in this effort, and it's rude to trick me into doing so.

That is not true of books, search engines, stack overflow, or talking to a worker, because in all those cases you still had to do the work yourself of comprehending, preparing, and submitting the patch. This is also why they ask for a disclosure of “the extent to which AI assistance was used”. What about that isn’t clear to you?

[go to top]