About enshitification, open source and AI pollution
You must log in or # to comment.
if the bubble ever collapses maybe AI use will cost too much to harass FOSS projects with it.
This. AI is not and will not be profitable. It’s afloat because of an investor circlejerk. Once they get off then it’s over. A waiting game.
It won’t sadly. I can run many on my computer. They’ll still be available, even if every server-based one goes down.
But will there still be big tech saboteurs?
I’m thinking we are going to have to come up with a way to vet contributors before allowing them to contribute code. This will likely reduce the overall contributions of people given we’re creating a barrier to entry, but so many of these FOSS projects are just straight getting overwhelmed with this shit. Something needs to change.
Really awful website with more ads and shit than content.
Nevertheless worrysome and indeed food for tough. Ai is here to stay, so we all need to find ways to deal with it, that we like it or not.
Maybe specialized humans in detect ai slop? Because using ai to detect ai seems kind of hironic.
There is the new vouch system too
Use ai to make code to detect and block AI. Actually though wish we could force an AI tag tat could just be blocked with UBO
Can anyone describe the process of code contribution with open-source. It’s it like anyone hands in a code.
You make a copy of the code (“fork”) for yourself, make edits, then request that your changes be accepted into the original project (“pull/merge request”). Someone from the project has to check the edits, make that decision and hit accept or decline.
Ideally, you’d also first talk to the developers in charge of the project to see if your changes would be wanted in the first place.
(Or you’d start by reviewing existing bug reports and feature requests and addressing one of those.)
What I mean is, it’s generally better to not just throw code at them and hope they’ll like it. If you check first to see if they want it, you can save yourself from wasting effort on writing code that they’ll decline.
I assume when people do that it’s because they’re going to be making the fork regardless, and they think they’re being helpful by submitting a pull request with thier AI slop… But really they should just keep it on thier own fork if they don’t understand the changes but want to use it regardless…
generally yeah. the problem is that the barrier to entry used to be higher so fewer people knew how to write code to integrate with the project before coding agents. now anyone who can install Claude Code has a seat at that table
Can they require that all code submissions have a natural language summary of it included?
AI can do that. At least well enough to not help, and it would make actual human-generated code harder.
