←back to thread

493 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Havoc ◴[] No.44382839[source]
I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions
replies(6): >>44382854 #>>44382954 #>>44383005 #>>44383017 #>>44383164 #>>44383177 #
SchemaLoad ◴[] No.44382854[source]
This could honestly break open source, with how quickly you can generate bullshit, and how long it takes to review and reject it. I can imagine more projects going the way of Android where you can download the source, but realistically you can't contribute as a random outsider.
replies(5): >>44382866 #>>44382874 #>>44383174 #>>44383418 #>>44385273 #
api ◴[] No.44382866[source]
Quality contributions to OSS are rare unless the project is huge.
replies(1): >>44382922 #
loeg ◴[] No.44382922[source]
Historically the opposite of quality contributions has been no contributions, not net-negative contributions (random slop that costs more in review than it provides benefit).
replies(2): >>44383133 #>>44387502 #
lmm ◴[] No.44383133[source]
No it hasn't? Net-negative contributions to open source have been extremely common for years, it's not like you need an LLM to make them.
replies(1): >>44383393 #
1. loeg ◴[] No.44383393{3}[source]
I guess we've had very different experiences!