zlacker

[return to "Vouch"]
1. skeete+vz1[view] [source] 2026-02-08 18:24:08
>>chwtut+(OP)
Doesn't this just shift the same hard problem from code to people? It may seem easier to assess the "quality" of a person, but I think there are all sorts of complex social dynamics at play, plus far more change over time. Leave it to us nerds to try and solve a human problem with a technical solution...
◧◩
2. mjr00+TB1[view] [source] 2026-02-08 18:39:54
>>skeete+vz1
> Leave it to us nerds to try and solve a human problem with a technical solution...

Honestly, my view is that this is a technical solution for a cultural problem. Particularly in the last ~10 years, open source has really been pushed into a "corporate dress rehearsal" culture. All communication is expected to be highly professional. Talk to everyone who opens an issue or PR with the respect you would a coworker. Say nothing that might offend anyone anywhere, keep it PG-13. Even Linus had to pull back on his famously virtiolic responses to shitty code in PRs.

Being open and inclusive is great, but bad actors have really exploited this. The proper response to an obviously AI-generated slop PR should be "fuck off", closing the PR, and banning them from the repo. But maintainers are uncomfortable with doing this directly since it violates the corporate dress rehearsal kayfabe, so vouch is a roundabout way of accomplishing this.

◧◩◪
3. zozbot+PE1[view] [source] 2026-02-08 18:59:48
>>mjr00+TB1
I disagree. The problem with AI slop is not so much that it's from AI, but that it's pretty much always completely unreadable and unmaintainable code. So just tell the contributor that their work is not up to standard, and if they persist they will get banned from contributing further. It's their job to refactor the contribution so that it's as easy as possible to review, and if AI is not up to the task this will obviously require human effort.
◧◩◪◨
4. bpavuk+ZF1[view] [source] 2026-02-08 19:06:49
>>zozbot+PE1
...and waste valuable time reviewing AI slop? it looks surprisingly plausible, but never integrates with the bigger picture.
[go to top]