So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited.
Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?
Unless the change is an obvious improvement, it has to be worth the time for the maintainers to spend attention reviewing it (and supporting the code forever, and all the rest).
Even if these particular changes are "harmless" and easy to review, accepting them sets a precedent that encourages an unsustainable floodgate of AI-generated changes that will overwhelm the project.
My solution is to ask them for proof of work. Many of these disappear after opening a PR that they never tested. How can you claim to have fixed a visual issue without a screenshot? Insta-close.
Hi Neil, fun to see you on HN. I agree with your points and I you summarized it very well as "Ultimately, open source is built on trust".
AI is destroying trust in open source and many other areas and I think this will discourage teams from publishing their source code in the future.
On the other hand, personal connections are becoming even more important, which is unfair to the younger generation and people who don't live near tech hubs.
Today's conception of open source is different from the original anyway. It used to be "we made this thing, here's the code" but now it's turned into some kind of weird parasocial thing more akin to Facebook.
This makes sense. Apart from the original thing, I no longer upstream anything. It just takes comparatively more effort than maintaining a private fork with my own idiosyncratic fix. This must mean that even small fixes that non-contributors would make in the past are just happening off the books, so to speak. e.g. I made a tiny fix to Thrift codegen because some function could be much faster. These days I wouldn't bother. I'd just fork and leave upstream to be upstream.
I suspect many people are like me since it feels like a very normie position to take. That means that contributors are even more likely to be useful because both the drive-by genuine contributors have chosen otherwise and these contributors have increased.
It must be quite painful to be an open source maintainer right now. One wonders what to make of such projects in a future where a feature-list is a sufficient prompt.
I ran through exactly this thought process & LLM based resolution just 8 hours ago with a segfault compiling a project which likely doesn't care about the given platform combo much.
GitHub flavored FOSS I believe works best for "corporate FOSS" projects and terrible for "FOSS as how it was conceived decades ago".
Or rather I believe that it is engineered exactly for the former.
What it does well is coordination between corps, working in public (while on a corp payroll) and extracting some drive-by-PR value out of random third-parties.
The closer your project is to that shape, the better it works for you. The further it is away, the more pain you will feel.
This has nothing to do with AI slop.
AI slop just turned up a few knobs that were already there.
Both are fine, but I also prefer 'furnish', as in put in the main parts of your CV. In a way, 'burnish' is more like 'polish', suggesting an extra layer on top, rather than the fundamental parts.
Vibe slop or put on your C.V "contributor to <wellknownproject>"? In terms of social currency B wins easily, unless you can guerilla market as well as Openclaw.
that won't work because all those millions of 'projects' are unmaintainable vaporware which is exactly why people try to piggyback on the reputation of software that is actually being used and developed by people
I very much can relate, as I've also been receiving many of these drive-by PRs lately.
One big problem I have with them is that they take away time from project maintainers for reviewing and helping to get the PRs into shape, which then can't be spent on other, more important things. I feel like the "good first issue" GitHub label is specifically attracting these kinds of contributions.
It's not a black-or-white thing though, and you need to tell apart folks who produce slop PRs against any arbitrary repo, from folks using AI to contribute in a sensible way. We've tried to codify some rules in our contribution guide [1]:
- PRs from apparent bot accounts are closed
- PRs from users who file large numbers against random repos are closed
- You're welcome to use AI, but you need to stand behind your PR and be able to explain it
I'm sure we'll adjust those rules over time, but since we have instantiated them, it definitely has become easier to deal with AI PRs and handle them in an a relatively objective way. It absolutely means that sometimes a PR will be closed which could have been an improvement, but I think this is the right thing to do given the circumstances.
> The changes were harmless and correct, but that did not make me feel better about accepting or merging them.
So do you have the project’s best interest at heart or not? If you’re more concerned about the intent of a valid contribution than the content, why don’t you ask yourself where your intent is? You rejected a valid contribution based on unverified vibes about the person’s intent, instead of assuming they were just being helpful.
Why not assume someone does have the best interest of their own project at heart? How do you get to question that out of the gate, while pretending automated grammar and spelling fixes to rack up PR counts are benevolent unless proven otherwise? Simply assume the person who made the thing you didn't make, who was the only person (or persons) on the planet to come up with that exact thing, knows what's best for that person (or persons). Just like you would handle your own stuff.
So the fixes are still fixes, but we (I am also a OSS maintainer) are unwilling to accept them as they boost the contributor’s status where we think the merit is very or extremely limited.
Why not have these PRs counted differently (by the platform), and/or colored differently in the timeline(s) thus made less visible or more clear?
Change is bad unless it's great.
Unless the change is an obvious improvement, it has to be worth the time for the maintainers to spend attention reviewing it (and supporting the code forever, and all the rest).
Even if these particular changes are "harmless" and easy to review, accepting them sets a precedent that encourages an unsustainable floodgate of AI-generated changes that will overwhelm the project.
Why not let them have the status boost? This isn't zero sum.
> This isn't zero sum.
True, it is actually negative sum, because fake merit erodes trust in real merit, as it makes it a lot harder to spot the latter.
Boost for what? That they can type a prompt?
How do you distinguish those who know what they are doing from those who only can write a prompt and copy the result?
Making the haystack bigger is a bad idea if you search the needle
The whole idea of "counting PRs" as a vanity metric is flawed because vanity metrics are flawed.
I don't think that there is a technical solution to be found here, as the problem is anything but technical.
__
A hack/trap:
Comment "Ah yes thanks a lot for the hint :)", then make the changes yourself.
Then see how the person reacts to that.
Hack the grifters. Hack the planet.
My solution is to ask them for proof of work. Many of these disappear after opening a PR that they never tested. How can you claim to have fixed a visual issue without a screenshot? Insta-close.
Or just pull the pr into your local git, git amend --reset-author, and then push it to master yourself.
Hi Neil, fun to see you on HN. I agree with your points and I you summarized it very well as "Ultimately, open source is built on trust".
AI is destroying trust in open source and many other areas and I think this will discourage teams from publishing their source code in the future.
On the other hand, personal connections are becoming even more important, which is unfair to the younger generation and people who don't live near tech hubs.
Today's conception of open source is different from the original anyway. It used to be "we made this thing, here's the code" but now it's turned into some kind of weird parasocial thing more akin to Facebook.
Fortunately they can’t do duck face with a project for their instagram feed /s
This makes sense. Apart from the original thing, I no longer upstream anything. It just takes comparatively more effort than maintaining a private fork with my own idiosyncratic fix. This must mean that even small fixes that non-contributors would make in the past are just happening off the books, so to speak. e.g. I made a tiny fix to Thrift codegen because some function could be much faster. These days I wouldn't bother. I'd just fork and leave upstream to be upstream.
I suspect many people are like me since it feels like a very normie position to take. That means that contributors are even more likely to be useful because both the drive-by genuine contributors have chosen otherwise and these contributors have increased.
It must be quite painful to be an open source maintainer right now. One wonders what to make of such projects in a future where a feature-list is a sufficient prompt.
How could it take less effort to maintain a fork? You have to merge the upstream in every week and fight endlessly on conflicts with your patches.
I ran through exactly this thought process & LLM based resolution just 8 hours ago with a segfault compiling a project which likely doesn't care about the given platform combo much.
GitHub flavored FOSS I believe works best for "corporate FOSS" projects and terrible for "FOSS as how it was conceived decades ago". Or rather I believe that it is engineered exactly for the former.
What it does well is coordination between corps, working in public (while on a corp payroll) and extracting some drive-by-PR value out of random third-parties.
The closer your project is to that shape, the better it works for you. The further it is away, the more pain you will feel.
This has nothing to do with AI slop. AI slop just turned up a few knobs that were already there.
I’ve heard about similar issues with Hacktoberfest’s T-shirts back in 2020, but it was not as automated back then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24643894
I think the author meant 'burnish' there, which is a clever way of showing they didn't use AI :-)
this is the real unlock, we found the load-bearing footgun
Furnish makes more sense.
Both are fine, but I also prefer 'furnish', as in put in the main parts of your CV. In a way, 'burnish' is more like 'polish', suggesting an extra layer on top, rather than the fundamental parts.
This is nothing new, people have been making spellcheck commits all over github for years... and that was before ai slop even existed.
This is weird though.
Obviously the best way to use AI to furnish your CV is to build your own project using AI.
Vibe slop or put on your C.V "contributor to <wellknownproject>"? In terms of social currency B wins easily, unless you can guerilla market as well as Openclaw.
that won't work because all those millions of 'projects' are unmaintainable vaporware which is exactly why people try to piggyback on the reputation of software that is actually being used and developed by people
Create AI to review the pull requests and auto ban people for low SNR.
I very much can relate, as I've also been receiving many of these drive-by PRs lately.
One big problem I have with them is that they take away time from project maintainers for reviewing and helping to get the PRs into shape, which then can't be spent on other, more important things. I feel like the "good first issue" GitHub label is specifically attracting these kinds of contributions.
It's not a black-or-white thing though, and you need to tell apart folks who produce slop PRs against any arbitrary repo, from folks using AI to contribute in a sensible way. We've tried to codify some rules in our contribution guide [1]:
- PRs from apparent bot accounts are closed - PRs from users who file large numbers against random repos are closed - You're welcome to use AI, but you need to stand behind your PR and be able to explain it
I'm sure we'll adjust those rules over time, but since we have instantiated them, it definitely has become easier to deal with AI PRs and handle them in an a relatively objective way. It absolutely means that sometimes a PR will be closed which could have been an improvement, but I think this is the right thing to do given the circumstances.
[1] https://github.com/hardwood-hq/hardwood/blob/main/CONTRIBUTI...
> The changes were harmless and correct, but that did not make me feel better about accepting or merging them.
So do you have the project’s best interest at heart or not? If you’re more concerned about the intent of a valid contribution than the content, why don’t you ask yourself where your intent is? You rejected a valid contribution based on unverified vibes about the person’s intent, instead of assuming they were just being helpful.
Why not assume someone does have the best interest of their own project at heart? How do you get to question that out of the gate, while pretending automated grammar and spelling fixes to rack up PR counts are benevolent unless proven otherwise? Simply assume the person who made the thing you didn't make, who was the only person (or persons) on the planet to come up with that exact thing, knows what's best for that person (or persons). Just like you would handle your own stuff.
The changes were grammar and spelling fixes in comments. It is not sufficient for someone to intend to be helpful.
If people can spam low-effort PRs they will. Unverified vibes is you closing your eyes to a very real issue.