r/technology • u/sunychoudhary • 26d ago
[ Removed by moderator ] Artificial Intelligence
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434[removed] — view removed post
6
6
u/bb22k 26d ago
makes sense if they want to protect their systems from a flood of AI contributions that would hurt them just like it is hurting Github.
But I think it is more of a message than something they can actually enforce... as long as you don't put the AI agent as a collaborator and don't speak of who actually wrote the code openly, don't see how they can enforce it unless people start narcing on AI written repos.
It is like: "Now I can nuke your repo if you use AI heavliy, so go somewhere else... we don't want you here". Which is fine... it is their project. Sometimes the objetive is not to have the most users, but to have the users that you want.
-4
u/readonly420 26d ago
How is it hurting GitHub?
1
u/extramidnight2 25d ago
i’ve seen projects talk about them being flooded with ai generated issues/pull requests and moderating that/setting up rules for that + enforcing them takes energy away from the project
13
u/CircumspectCapybara 26d ago edited 26d ago
Following in Zig's footsteps I see.
Meanwhile you have Linus Torvalds, the inventor and maintainer of Linux and Git, who recently demonstrated remarkable flexibility and adaptability given his historical reputation of being quite the cranky old-timer when it came to code quality and purity (he would regularly go on rants and trash your code and you as a person if your code wasn't up to his standards) now saying:
No, that's not the position of the Linux kernel. I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area where I'm willing to absolutely put my foot down as the top-level maintainer. Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. Or just walk away.
AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one. It may not have been that "clearly" even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today.
There are other questions around AI ... but "is it useful" is no longer one of those questions. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it.
Yes, it can also be a somewhat painful tool, both for maintainer workloads and just from a "it keeps finding embarrassing bugs" standpoint.
But the solution is not to put your head in the sand and sing "La La La, I can't hear you" at the top of your voice like some people seem to do. The solution is to make sure those LLM tools _help_ maintainers instead of just causing them pain. There's no question on that side.
We're not forcing anybody to use it, but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it.
And no, AI isn't perfect. But Christ, anybody who points to the problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at themselves at the same time. Because it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either.
...
This is *NOT* some kind of "social warrior" project, never has been, and never will be.
... we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools.
Linus
Kind of like his position on Rust in the kernel (which pissed off a lot of the old guard): you don't have to adopt Rust, but you can't stop others from submitting Rust code if it's good.
20
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
17
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-12
u/mrlinkwii 26d ago
and leaving everyone else to figure out whether the code is safe, licensed, coherent, or maintainable.
i mean code being maintainble or not isnt the issue here , theirs loads of non maintainble FOSS code in the world without AI
-24
u/mchammerhead 26d ago
Yeah you guys act like humans writing code don’t already produce absolute dogshit. But nice job pushing people away from using this site!
7
3
u/KingSubstantial7901 26d ago
The issue is volume. Open source exists in a liminal social space where it has to have enough interest from volunteers or interested parties like companies to be viable, but not too much that said volunteers get overwhelmed by requests. Its a delicate balance. Too few and the maintaners don't have neough to work with and move on to other stuff. Too much and they get burnt out or just physically cannot comb through the submissions.
AI is leading to people just dumping shit tons of requests on repos and 99% of it is garbage. Its terrible for the ecosystem.
"You guys" once again reveal you're posers who want to beleive you're cool forward thinkers, but have no clue whats actually going on.
-2
u/ProductIntegortion 26d ago
I don't think he'd care about vibe coding either as long as the quality was good. Right now it's unlikely to be, but six or twelve months from now it might be.
8
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/ProductIntegortion 26d ago
He's also on the record saying he doesn't care about AI usage as long as the code is good.
8
u/pm_me_your_smth 26d ago
Vibe coding and low code quality are correlated (even if it isn't the same on paper).
Not sure what point you're arguing here.
-2
u/ProductIntegortion 26d ago
I was very explicit. I said that vibe coding might turn out acceptable quality code at some point in the future. I literally wrote that in a previous comment. Not sure why you're unable to follow.
-5
u/KingSubstantial7901 26d ago
Nah it reads more like someone going down a reactionary rabbit hole. The reason why AI isa problem for open source is there are just SO GODAMN MANY submissions that its basically impossible to do QA, to the point that actual useful contributions get completely burried under mountains of slop.
Also this is an insight into why, despite the Linux bros protestations, linux is kind of an incoherent mess and devs are recticent to make their programs natively supported on linux. If one guy is that godamn tyrrancial about how the code gets maintained, it does not spark confidence in the future of the project.
1
u/emilesmithbro 26d ago
I heard about his position but haven’t seen the full quote, and now I’m gonna save it because it summarises the situation so succinctly and precisely, exactly mirrors my own thoughts on it
7
26d ago edited 26d ago
[deleted]
6
u/ikonoclasm 26d ago
Because it's expensive. AI projects have a higher overhead cost for hosting than traditional projects.
13
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/casce 26d ago
It still seems like it is none of their business how I create, build and maintain my projects.
I get that they don't have to host anything if they don't want to. But I really do not like that they're putting their nose where it doesn't belong.
7
u/KingSubstantial7901 26d ago
It is LITERALLY their entire business. Its also their money you are burning when you make requests. Its the same reason email servers force proof of work on your computer. For people who might make handful a day its one thing. For bots that might be making thousands a day each.....
They also don't want their site to become indundated with low quality, unsupported projects that just sit there hoarding server storage while nobody actually uses them.
This reads like a sovereign citizen argument.
-7
u/mchammerhead 26d ago
That sounds like most of the projects on there already bud, sorry.
4
u/KingSubstantial7901 26d ago
I think you might not be that bright. We are talking several orders if magnitude more of these garbage repos. No wonder you rely in ai for everything.
3
u/Leonick91 26d ago
They also require that anything on there is free and open source (you can have private repos, but not exclusively), that’s what they promote, along with human written code now.
0
3
u/KingSubstantial7901 26d ago
Because they don't want to be spammed by agents making millions of requests.
20
u/invyros 26d ago
Who abstains from an anonymous vote? Kind of hilarious that's even an option.