Replying to Avatar aj

The point is to allow editors to reject ai "slop" without having to treat it as if it were a serious contribution, and without getting blamed for being overly controlling, unpredictable or arbitrary.

Using the same approach as for onchain spam -- only N prs will be accepted per week and whoever pays the editors the most will have their prs prioritised -- probably doesn't have the right incentives.
Avatar
waxwing 1mo ago

I don't think any reviewer should have a responsibility to justify in detail why they're not accepting a PR, or why they're choosing to spend more time to review one and not another.

I mean, heck, it's going to happen right - a PR from sipa vs a PR from Joe Bloggs.

I think your point about the analogy isn't as clear as all that; the analogy would be more with setting policy and less with what constitutes a valid transaction (that's more, does the syntax of the document even satisfy the definition of a BIP).

If the problem with AI drafts were *only* volume we wouldn't be having the same discussion, nor using terms like slop.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
aj 1mo ago

You might not think bip editors have that responsibility, but lots of people do, and will react pretty negatively if they don't appear to live up to that responsibility.