3 ms·
Looks to me that the issue is with the PR process, not with open-source. From the article - > It's gotten so bad, GitHub added a feature to disable Pull Reque
by thunderbong 9mo ago
Looks to me that the issue is with the PR process, not with open-source.
From the article -
> It's gotten so bad, GitHub added a feature to disable Pull Requests entirely. Pull Requests are the fundamental thing that made GitHub popular. And now we'll see that feature closed off in more and more repos.
I don't have a solution for this, I'm pointing to the flaw in the assumption that AI is destroying open-source.
- mycall 9mo agoThe solution is forking. Make a fork, update it to your heart's content. If it is found to be solid later, perhaps it will be studied and forked itself.
- JKCalhoun 9mo agoYeah, been thinking that we should let the LLMs run riot on special AI branches— or heck, maybe Microsoft can buy/create AIGitHub.com.
- foxglacier 9mo agoBut that's already true. Github lets people make a fork and have their AI run riot on it. What are you really suggesting if not the status quo?
- JKCalhoun 9mo agoThat we embrace it generally. Even just proposing a naming convention would allow for agents to find the AI-sanctioned branch (or create it) and have at it. (Maybe some AI agents can collaborate on "AILinux" and we can see how it measures up, ha ha.)
- foxglacier 9mo agoMaintainer could just say "No AI please" and refuse PRs that they judge are probably AI. The AI operator can figure out how to make a fork if that's what they want. But they probably don't want that, so no point anybody else creating a system that nobody wants and nobody will use.
- esafak 9mo agoNow every contributor has a fork. That's bad for consumers. Forks should be temporary.