no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
11 comments in c/godot@programming.dev view that post
[–] 38 points 4 months ago (1 child)

To me, this is the right approach. Contributors should not be submitting code that they don't understand and can't adjust.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's a hard problem. QEMU is currently reviewing it's AI policy and we're mindful to how helpful LLMs can be too someone new to the codebase while also capable of getting confused as the scope extends more widely over the repository.

    We're open to wider changes being made with pre-approval but I suspect they will be special cases like guided re-factoring where they can remove the tedium from the engineer.

    We've been experimenting with using models for patch review but again it can be a time sync if the models go off on a wild adventure. If they could reliably catch the common gotchas that would at least alleviate some of the pressure on maintainers.

    The most important part of Godot's policy is the humans responsibility and ownership of the code.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago

    Policy seems like a fair and good compromise.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago

    Oh hell yeah! One company with some damned sense

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    Awesome policy

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I don't understand what concrete steps are being taken. People can still submit stuff and let all communication go through an LLM. What is concretely being changed here in the flow of things?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago*

    If they see it they can reject the PR instead of going back and forth with a robot now without any complaints because they can just point to "follow our guidelines"

    Without the ability to say "It goes against the guidelines" the annoying robot can tirelessly complain and plead to let its robot code into the codebase. It can keep saying "there are no rules against robot slop contributions" or "there are no rules against using a robot as a medium for conversation" draining more time and energy from a finite pool of people capable and f spending time and energy reviewing code and communicating.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Transparent rules build stronger CDMWorlds.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 16 points 4 months ago

    AI slop is an enormous threat to open source projects, mostly because they will be unmaintainable given enough time and slop.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago

    That's just common sense.

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Onward, the Butlerian Jihad!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment