Congrats you made a mistake. Any contributor can make commits with ai bots credited into them, and it’s not displayed to the reviewer. Meaning that for just accepting a MR that looked good, you would get banned. Nothing is obvious
The rule is for vibe coded projects. From the article:
If your work fits into these cases, it is unlikely that you are affected at all:
Projects who have an active community that cares about and maintains the software
Projects with a significant pre-LLM history
Maintainers who unknowingly or willingly accepted LLM-generated contributions from other contributors, if your project otherwise does not involve the heavy use of LLMs
They don’t need a rule that can be run automatically because it’s a purely human operation that is trying to take a stand against the more pernicious effects of corporate LLMs.
Do you just disagree with this stance and are just trying to poke whatever hypothetical holes you can in their logic, or do you just want more rigorous definitions/rules?
From experience, content moderation works best when there is some flexibility in the rules, so people can talk it out and come to concessions together.
Aaaah, I see where your consternation comes from. Yeah I’m not a primary english speaker, I did not mean to imply “automated” with “mass banning”. I meant they clean up shop and get rid of vibe-coded shit, but “mass banning” for me would be anything from a hundred projects up, and that’s something human reviewers would easily clean up shop each day.
Obviously a rule that should not and cannot be defined “hard” should not be used for automated banning. At most for automated-selection-for-review.
Define clearly
As in obvious. Like they have model instructions and bots credited as authors on commits.
Congrats you made a mistake. Any contributor can make commits with ai bots credited into them, and it’s not displayed to the reviewer. Meaning that for just accepting a MR that looked good, you would get banned. Nothing is obvious
The rule is for vibe coded projects. From the article:
They don’t need a rule that can be run automatically because it’s a purely human operation that is trying to take a stand against the more pernicious effects of corporate LLMs.
Do you just disagree with this stance and are just trying to poke whatever hypothetical holes you can in their logic, or do you just want more rigorous definitions/rules?
From experience, content moderation works best when there is some flexibility in the rules, so people can talk it out and come to concessions together.
Carighan talked about “mass-banning”. This is what I opposed to
Aaaah, I see where your consternation comes from. Yeah I’m not a primary english speaker, I did not mean to imply “automated” with “mass banning”. I meant they clean up shop and get rid of vibe-coded shit, but “mass banning” for me would be anything from a hundred projects up, and that’s something human reviewers would easily clean up shop each day.
Obviously a rule that should not and cannot be defined “hard” should not be used for automated banning. At most for automated-selection-for-review.
Nobody cares for your got’em logic, it just makes you look childish.
The child is the person who acts before thinking and without caring about the issues it will cause
Why? That’d not he what a company banning the projects would do, so why should it be done beforehand?
It’s exactly about having a hard cut-off, but for a softly defined offense.