←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: 0.209s | source
Show context
electric_muse ◴[21 Aug 25 18:54 UTC] No.44976627[source]▶
I just submitted my first big open source contribution to the OpenAI agents SDK for JS. Every word except the issue I opened was done by AI.

On the flip side, I’m preparing to open source a project I made for a serializable state machine with runtime hooks. But that’s blood sweat and tears labor. AI is writing a lot of the unit tests and the code, but it’s entirely by my architectural design.

There’s a continuum here. It’s not binary. How can we communicate what role AI played?

And does it really matter anymore?

(Disclaimer: autocorrect corrected my spelling mistakes. Sent from iPhone.)

replies(6): >>44976688 #>>44976709 #>>44976717 #>>44976767 #>>44977295 #>>44977510 #
1. KritVutGu ◴[21 Aug 25 20:15 UTC] No.44977510[source]▶
> AI is writing a lot of the unit tests

Are you kidding?

- For ages now, people have used "broad test coverage" and "CI" as excuses for superficial reviews, as excuses for negligent coding and verification.

- And now people foist even writing the test suite off on AI.

Don't you see that this way you have no reasoned examination of the code?

> ... and the code, but it’s entirely by my architectural design.

This is fucking bullshit. The devil is in the details, always. The most care and the closest supervision must be precisely where the rubber meets the road. I wouldn't want to drive a car that you "architecturally designed", and a statistical language model manufactured.