2 ms·
It should be the responsibility of the person submitting changes. The problem is AI apparently makes it easy for people to shirk that responsibility.
by IshKebab 8mo ago
It should be the responsibility of the person submitting changes. The problem is AI apparently makes it easy for people to shirk that responsibility.
- qsera 8mo ago> people to shirk that responsibility. Actually not shrink, but just transfer it to reviewers.
- sothatsit 8mo agoTrusted contributors using LLMs do not cause this problem though. It is the larger volume of low-effort contributions causing this problem, and those contributors are the most likely to ignore the policies. Therefore, policies restricting AI-use on the basis of avoiding low-quality contributions are probably hurting more than they’re helping.
- IshKebab 8mo agoI'm not sure I agree. If you have a blanket "you must disclose how you use AI" policy it's socially very easy to say "can you disclose how you used AI", and then if they say Claude code wrote it, you can just ignore it, guilt-free. Without that policy it feels rude to ask, and rude to ignore in case they didn't use AI.
- sothatsit 8mo agoI’d argue this social angle is not very nuanced or effective. Not all people who used Claude Code will be submitting low-effort patches, and bad-faith actors will just lie about their AI-use. For example, someone might have done a lot of investigation to find the root cause of an issue, followed by getting Claude Code to implement the fix, which they then tested. That has a good chance of being a good contribution. I think tackling this from the trust side is likely to be a better solution. One approach would be to only allow new contributors to make small patches. Once those are accepted, then allow them to make larger contributions. That would help with the real problem, which is higher volumes of low-effort contributions overwhelming maintainers.