zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. ants_e+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-21 23:02:15
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.

replies(2): >>latexr+k5 >>comput+hX
2. latexr+k5[view] [source] 2025-08-21 23:40:17
>>ants_e+(OP)
> 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?

3. comput+hX[view] [source] 2025-08-22 10:35:55
>>ants_e+(OP)
You should add citations to books, stack overflow posts and colleagues you consult with, yes.
[go to top]