←back to thread

728 points freetonik | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Waterluvian ◴[] 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 #
nosignono ◴[] No.44977121[source]
> I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI. I think you do care, you are only thinking about the happy path where someone uses a little AI to draft a well constructed PR.

There's a lot ways AI can be used to quickly overwhelm a project maintainer.

replies(2): >>44977143 #>>44977273 #
oceanplexian ◴[] No.44977273[source]
> I can generate 1,000 PRs today against an open source project using AI.

Then perhaps the way you contribute, review, and accept code is fundamentally wrong and needs to change with the times.

It may be that technologies like Github PRs and other VCS patterns are literally obsolete. We've done this before throughout many cycles of technology, and these are the questions we need to ask ourselves as engineers, not stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's 2019.

replies(3): >>44977407 #>>44977443 #>>44978474 #
1. whatevertrevor ◴[] No.44977407[source]
I don't think throwing out the concept of code reviews and version control is the correct response to a purported rise in low-effort high-volume patches. If anything it's even more required.
replies(1): >>44978087 #
2. oblio ◴[] No.44978087[source]
Heck, let's throw out QA, too :-))