AI slop pull requests are becoming a big problem on GitHub. Seen a bunch of maintainers of big projects lament.
This is a place where nostr reputation tools can solve a very real world problem and potentially get serious adoption. Note the viral popularity of divine’s no-AI stance.
If I were a working on nostr+git I would consider orienting all my branding and value proposition at this problem
This is a good thought. Right now I feel we are too experimental and it would be counter productive to have a large influx of users with viral marketing.
nostr:nprofile1qqsggm4l0xs23qfjwnkfwf6fqcs66s3lz637gaxhl4nwd2vtle8rnfqprfmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakszyrhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekxzmnyryc3g8 nostr:nprofile1qqsqxefne258ydmfgm2wfl02fsdqgs0d5wx29kweg9amxcqxew4t7kqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumrpdejz72a3rzq nostr:npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z
I personally see this as a personal responsibility problem. Public pull requests were a solution to patch contribution. There was one solution to rule them all, and that's open the general public to your project. This was not really how things were done, and I think it's fair to argue that many companies, especially on the larger side, managing OSS projects don't allow pull requests because regardless of AI PRs get to time consuming for serious maintainers who have an internal workflow.
I see this specifically as a problem for small maintainers who WANT to rely on public pull requests for public contributions. Which arguably few maintainers really want. They'd much rather have high effort patches sent to them in a way that fits their tools and workflow.
If GitHub allowed users to disable PRs I think we'd see FAR more projects with PRs turned off. I sure would.
Many projects move to private git solutions which requires complete vetting of contributors anyway.
> If I were a working on nostr+git I would consider orienting all my branding and value proposition at this problem
I think it's fair to say this assumes we agree the existing model of contribution is a standard to implement/compete with.
I don't want to build GitHub, or directly compete against it. You will lose for the foreseeable future.
I think it's normal and expected to want to protect the borders of your project. I think the borderless model works on a bell curve, and it highly depends on the product.
I did the old #learnToCode way back when so I don't need AI to introduce errors that I stopped making years ago.
And yeah, AI pull request are pretty horrifying
whats the solution?
Only idea I have had is to use templates for PRs and Issues with a required check box to tick "AI was not utilized in the generation of this PR/Issue".
If it's not checked, auto-close that shit. If they lied, block them.
If github had like scarlet letters where maintainers you could easily see if any reputablable maintainers had ever reported a given dev for submitting a slop pr, then I think things would be a lot better
I guess the problem is that this solves a problem for large project maintainers so it might be hard to jump straight to supporting these big projects. But if you did get one to switch (zig switched off GitHub like 2 weeks ago so it is possible) then you could get a ton of adoption quickly
The git+nostr work I’ve seen are mostly appealing to ideological nostr devs and that market will grow very slowly …
Similar regarding security reports. Most projects and companies were drowning in BS reports before AI, it’s 100x worse now. It’s effectively acting as a DoS vector for identifying real reports and solving them in a timely manner.
