The grounding premise of this comment chain was “AI submitted patches being more of a burden than a boon”. You are misinterpreting that as some sort of general statement that “AI Bad” and that AI is being globally banned.

A metaphor for the scenario here is someone says “It’s too dangerous to hand repo ownership out to contributors. Projects aren’t doing that anymore.” And someone else comes in to say “That’s not true! There are still repo owners. They are just limiting it to a select group now!” This statement of fact is only an interesting rebut if you misinterpret the first statement to say that no one will own the repo because repo ownership is fundamentally bad.

> It's a denial of service by the lazy against the reviewers, which is a very very different problem.

And it is AI enabling this behavior. Which was the premise above.

This whole chain was one person saying “AI is creating such a burden that projects are having to ban it”, someone else being willfully obtuse and saying “nuh uh, they’re actually still letting a very restricted set of people use it”, and now an increasingly tangential series of comments.

The fact that there’s a small carve out for a specific set of contributors in no way disputes what Supermancho claimed.

The problem is the cost is so wildly asymmetric. When everyone with a computer and a subscription can vibe code low quality features, when everyone can submit dubious security bug reports, no amount of funding will even that out. Producing submissions is essentially free while triaging and reviewing remains very expensive.

3 years ago the cost was asymmetric in the other direction. The cost of writing code was high. The cost of finding security bugs was extremely high. The cost of triaging and reviewing was basically the same as it is today.

Large corporations that are well funded are facing the exact same issues internally right now. With agent output so cheap, how do you deal with the deluge? It’s not practical or desirable to have your best engineers doing nothing but reviewing generated code, some of which is likely very low value.

Like most things, the reality is that you need a balance. Integration tests are great for validating complex system interdependencies. They are terrible for testing code paths exhaustively. You need both integration and unit testing to properly evaluate the product. You also need monitoring, because your testing environment will never 100% match what your customers see. (If it does, you’re system is probably trivial, and you don’t need those integration tests anyway.)

If you find yourself trying to test a piece of code and it’s an unreasonable effort, try moving up a level. The “unit” you’re testing might be the wrong granularity. If you can’t test a level up, then it’s probably that your code is bad and you don’t have units. You have a blob.

On many (most?) posts, far more energy is spent arguing about whether a post is AI than discussing if there’s anything of value in the post.

People are nitpicking every tiny thing in their search for proof of AI. It’s not useful and ends up dominating the conversation. AI panic is degrading the value of forums at least as much as actual AI at this point.

Agree that no one should be getting deported on 30 days because they got laid off.

Valid point about employees on visas though.

Again, you seem to be conflating lawsuit with trial.

“Hey, we’re going to fire you in 6 months. Just a heads up.”

Nah. Give me the year of salary and send me home today. Better for the employee and for the company than pointlessly dragging it out. Again, this is assuming generous severance.

They probably can, actually. TOS are legally binding.

More likely they would block you rather than pursuing legal avenues but they certainly could.

“Well I might be wrong but at least I’m not AI like YOU!”

Regardless of whether LLM training amounts to theft, thieves are still allowed to put locks on their own doors.