←back to thread

728 points freetonik | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.318s | 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 #
cvoss ◴[] No.44976945[source]
It does matter how and where a PR comes from, because reviewers are fallible and finite, so trust enters the equation inevitably. You must ask "Do I trust where this came from?" And to answer that, you need to know where it come from.

If trust didn't matter, there wouldn't have been a need for the Linux Kernel team to ban the University of Minnesota for attempting to intentionally smuggle bugs through the PR process as part of an unauthorized social experiment. As it stands, if you / your PRs can't be trusted, they should not even be admitted to the review process.

replies(4): >>44977169 #>>44977263 #>>44978862 #>>44979553 #
KritVutGu[dead post] ◴[] No.44977263[source]
[flagged]
1. therealpygon ◴[] No.44979540[source]
Being more trusting of people’s code simply because they didn’t use AI seems as naive as distrusting code contributions simply because they were written with the assistance of AI.

It seems a bit like saying you can’t trust a legal document because it was written on a computer with spellcheck, rather than by a $10 an hour temp with a typewriter.