Kinda based tbh, just refuse submissions from people that repeatedly submit shit regardless of if it’s AI or not.
That’s what I’m saying. Let’s say 10% of the time the code is good. It doesn’t matter where it came from, you test it and accept it.
If it’s bad code from an AI, you will see it’s bad code, if it’s good code from an AI, you will see it’s good. If it’s bad code from an amateur, you will see it’s bad. If it’s good code from an amateur you will see it’s good. If it’s bad code from a professional you will see it’s bad, and if it’s good code from them you will see it’s good.
You can complete ignore the source. And there’s always a few people sources spamming PRs, but you will be able to block them.
AI never mattered, the code always did.
Exactly. You’re responsible for the code that is submitted. I’ve seen good code come out of proficient centaurs. These are the peeps that know their craft well and can make the robots dance their tune. I’ve also seen shit code from people that obviously didn’t read the output too closely, and let the robot go off the rails. The latter group is who needs to be strung up from the rafters.
As I said in private elsewhere, I do not want any kernel development documentation to be some AI statement. We have enough people on both sides of the “sky is falling” and “it’s going to revolutionize software engineering”, I don’t want some kernel development docs to take either stance.
It’s why I strongly want this to be that “just a tool” statement.
And the AI slop issue is NOT going to be solved with documentation, and anybody who thinks it is either just naive, or wants to “make a statement”.
Neither of which is a good reason for documentation.
Stop screeching about how others use tech? Brilliant shit. People could learn.
