5 ms·
This could honestly break open source, with how quickly you can generate bullshit, and how long it takes to review and reject it. I can imagine more projects go
by SchemaLoad 1y ago
This could honestly break open source, with how quickly you can generate bullshit, and how long it takes to review and reject it. I can imagine more projects going the way of Android where you can download the source, but realistically you can't contribute as a random outsider.
- api 1y agoQuality contributions to OSS are rare unless the project is huge.
- loeg 1y agoHistorically the opposite of quality contributions has been no contributions, not net-negative contributions (random slop that costs more in review than it provides benefit).
- lmm 1y agoNo it hasn't? Net-negative contributions to open source have been extremely common for years, it's not like you need an LLM to make them.
- loeg 1y agoI guess we've had very different experiences!
- LtWorf 1y agoNah. I've had a lot of bad contributions. One PR deleted and readded all of the lines in the project, and the entire test suite was failing. The person got upset at me for saying I could not accept such a thing. There's other examples.
- hollerith 1y agoI've always thought that the possibility of forking the project is the main benefit to open-source licensing, and we know Android can be forked.
- ants_everywhere 1y agothe primary benefit of open source is freedom
- javawizard 1y agoThis is so tautological that I can't really tell what point you're trying to make.
- ants_everywhere 1y agohow can it possibly be tautological? The comment just above me said something entirely different: that the primary benefit of open source is forking
- b00ty4breakfast 1y agoI have an online acquaintance that maintains a very small and not widely used open-source project and the amount of (what we assume to be) automated AI submissions* they have to wade through is kinda wild given the very small number of contributors and users the thing has. It's gotta be clogging up these big projects like a DDoS attack. *"Automated" as in bots and "AI submissions" as in ai-generated code
- guappa 1y agoI find that by being on codeberg instead of github i tune out a lot of the noise.
- strogonoff 1y agoAmong Git hosters, SourceHut is perhaps the safest one when it comes to automated submissions. Unlike Codeberg, they also take a stance and I think some measures against LLM scraping. However, the barrier to collaboration is higher, and unless you self-host it is a paid service (only for project author, not collaborators).
- guappa 1y agoSourceHut has a crazy dude in charge. I'm not going there.
- strogonoff 1y agoIf no one calls you crazy you are doing something wrong. Crazy in what way?
- cowboylowrez 1y agomaybe its all the stallman drama? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41837782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41837782
- zahlman 1y agoFor many projects you realistically can't contribute as a random outsider anyway, simply because of the effort involved in grokking enough of the existing architecture to figure out where to make changes.
- graemep 1y agoI think it is yet another reason (potentially malicious contributors are another) that open source projects are going to have to verify contributors.