←back to thread

AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

(github.com)
728 points freetonik | 1 comments | 21 Aug 25 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
Waterluvian ◴[21 Aug 25 19:07 UTC] No.44976790[source]▶
I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”

replies(16): >>44976860 #>>44976869 #>>44976945 #>>44977015 #>>44977025 #>>44977121 #>>44977142 #>>44977241 #>>44977503 #>>44978050 #>>44978116 #>>44978159 #>>44978240 #>>44978311 #>>44978533 #>>44979437 #
quotemstr ◴[21 Aug 25 19:14 UTC] No.44976860[source]▶
As a project maintainer, you shouldn't make rules unenforceable rules that you and everyone else know people will flout. Doing so comes makes you seem impotent and diminishes the respect people have for rules in general.

You might argue that by making rules, even futile ones, you at least establish expectations and take a moral stance. Well, you can make a statement without dressing it up as a rule. But you don't get to be sanctimonious that way I guess.

replies(3): >>44976916 #>>44977208 #>>44977384 #
1. natrius ◴[21 Aug 25 19:48 UTC] No.44977208[source]▶
Unenforceable rules are bad, but if you tweak the rule to always require some sort of authorship statement (e.g. "I wrote this by hand" or "I wrote this with Claude"), then the honor system will mostly achieve the desired goal of calibrating code review effort.