Let’s deal with the mountain of AI slop garbage in the same way as what worked before:
We need some kind of reputation system for open source contributors. If you push slop, I don’t want to see your PR. If you consistently make worthwhile contributions, I’ll check out your PR.
How has that worked before? I’ve never encountered the system in practice. Can you give an example and explain how it works?
My fear is that newcomers will be locked out because of the assumption their code is LLM code but it genuinely is theirs. Or that they used an LLM, are willing to learn, think the code is genuinely good, but don’t know why it’s bad.
You mean reputation systems for filtering out low quality submissions? That’s why they exist. Spam filters, reddit, stack overflow, Lemmy, whatever. And people say “what about newcomers who start with no reputation” but it always seems to work out somehow.
My point was that “was this made by AI” is the wrong question. Not everything made using AI is dogshit, nor is everything made by real people always good. And you won’t always be able to tell the difference at all. Rather, let’s focus on the spam problem
Binary reputation systems aren’t good. I can say something that right and it can be downvoted because it goes against a person’s beliefs, because I’m unpopular, because a certain group doesn’t like it, because, because, because. Popularity is not a good measure of quality. Just look at the “publish or die” system. Just because you’ve been cited multiple times doesn’t make your paper right.
Imagine a trans contributor being downvoted just because they’re trans. How is that a good system? Do you expect trans people should only contribute in software projects where trans people are accepted? How are you going to prevent brigading?
Let’s deal with the mountain of AI slop garbage in the same way as what worked before:
We need some kind of reputation system for open source contributors. If you push slop, I don’t want to see your PR. If you consistently make worthwhile contributions, I’ll check out your PR.
How has that worked before? I’ve never encountered the system in practice. Can you give an example and explain how it works?
My fear is that newcomers will be locked out because of the assumption their code is LLM code but it genuinely is theirs. Or that they used an LLM, are willing to learn, think the code is genuinely good, but don’t know why it’s bad.
Very curious how the existing system works.
You mean reputation systems for filtering out low quality submissions? That’s why they exist. Spam filters, reddit, stack overflow, Lemmy, whatever. And people say “what about newcomers who start with no reputation” but it always seems to work out somehow.
My point was that “was this made by AI” is the wrong question. Not everything made using AI is dogshit, nor is everything made by real people always good. And you won’t always be able to tell the difference at all. Rather, let’s focus on the spam problem
Binary reputation systems aren’t good. I can say something that right and it can be downvoted because it goes against a person’s beliefs, because I’m unpopular, because a certain group doesn’t like it, because, because, because. Popularity is not a good measure of quality. Just look at the “publish or die” system. Just because you’ve been cited multiple times doesn’t make your paper right.
Imagine a trans contributor being downvoted just because they’re trans. How is that a good system? Do you expect trans people should only contribute in software projects where trans people are accepted? How are you going to prevent brigading?
I’m not here to debate you. I think it’s clear by now what I think should be done. If you disagree, that’s fine. No system is going to be perfect.