This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I don't contribute to open source projects (not talented enough at the moment, I can do basic stuff for myself sometimes) but I wonder if you can implement some kind of requirement to prove that your code worked to avoid this issue.
Like, you're submitting a request that fixes X thing or adds Y feature, show us it doing it before we review it in full.
It's everywhere. I was just trying to find some information on starting seeds for the garden this year and I was met with AI article after AI article just making shit up. One even had a "picture" of someone planting some seeds and their hand was merged into the ceramic flower pot.
The AI fire hose is destroying the internet.
gzdoom just simply banned ai code, and made a new fork that tries to stay clean. why cant they do the same?
Is all AI code tagged "hey, Claude made this puddle of piss code"?
This is a real "just catch all the criminals" type comment.
gzdoom just simply banned ai code
You got that wrong. Graf Zahl added AI code and all the other contributors left to fork it to create UZDoom.
This was honestly my biggest fear for a lot of FOSS applications.
Not necessarily in a malicious way (although there's certainly that happening as well). I think there's a lot of users who want to contribute, but don't know how to code, and suddenly think...hey...this is great! I can help out now!
Well meaning slop is still slop.
Look. I have no problems if you want to use AI to make shit code for your own bullshit. Have at it.
Don't submit that shit to open Source projects.
You want to use it? Use it for your own shit. The rest of us didn't ask for this. I'm really hoping the AI bubble bursts in a big way very soon. Microsoft is going to need a bail out, openai is fucking doomed, and z/Twitter/grok could go either way honestly.
Who in their right fucking mind looks at the costs of running an AI datacenter, and the fact that it's more economically feasible to buy a fucking nuclear power plant to run it all, and then say, yea, this is reasonable.
The C-whatever-O's are all taking crazy pills.
Maybe we need a way to generate checksums during version creation (like file version history) and during test runs of code that would be submitted along side the code as a sort of proof of work that AI couldn't easily recreate. It would make code creation harder for actual developers as well but it may reduce people trying to quickly contribute code the LLMs shit out.
A lightweight plugin that runs in your IDE maybe. So anytime you are writing code and testing it, the plugin is modifying a validation file that shows what you were doing and the results of your tests and debugging. Could then write an algorithm that gives a confidence score to the validation file and either triggers manual review or submits obviously bespoke code.
This could, in theory, also be used by universities to validate submitted papers to weed out AI essays.
AI crowd trying hard to find uses for AI
I think the open slop situation is also in part people who just want a feature and genuinely think they’re helping. People who can’t do the task themselves also can’t tell that the LLM also can’t do it.
But a lot of them are probably just padding their GitHub account too. Any given popular project has tons of forks by people who just want to have lots of repositories on their GitHub but don’t actually make changes because they can’t actually do it. I used to maintain my employer’s projects on GitHub and literally we’d have something like 3000 forks and 2990 of them would just be forks with no changes by people with lots of repositories but no actual work. Now these people are using LLMs to also make changes…
A similar problem is happening in submissions to science journals.
Get that code off of slophub and move it to Codeberg.
Is codeberg magically immune to AI slop pull requests?
No but they are actively not promoting it or encouraging it. Github and MS are. If you're going to keep staying on the pro-AI site, you're going to eat the consequences of that. Github are actively encouraging these submissions with profile badges and other obnoxious crap. Its not an appropriate env for development anymore. Its gamified AI crap.
No (just like Lemmy isn't immune against AI comments) but Github is actively working towards AI slop
Godot is also weighing the possibility of moving the project to another platform where there might be less incentive for users to "farm" legitimacy as a software developer with AI-generated code contributions.
Aahhh, I see the issue know.
That’s the incentive to just skirt the rules of whatever their submission policy is.
This is big tech trying to kill FOSS.
Sounds like they need a bot to check the code for AI telltales. Send AI to kill AI.
The Fine-AI-l Solution
Sounds like an excellent use of power and water and cou cycles in data centers.
Well I mean it's that or find more guys willing to go through it manually, which seems to be the problem since it's open source. Unless they can scrounge up the money to hire people to do it full time.
It's frequently hard to tell at a glance codegen slop, you actually have to look at it and understand what's going on. An LLM that would produce such slop itself isn't going to be effective at detecting such slop.
People want AI, people get AI! Force feed your self with AI, thats what you wanted right? ask your self, what innovations have AI brought to us, apart from money to big corporate companies.
We now get a little digital idiot popping up in every program and OS saying it can help. It’s like Clippy but annoying.
every program and OS
every nonfree program and OS
I am a game developer and a web developer and I use AI sometimes just to make it write template code for me so that I can make the boilerplate faster. For the rest of the code, AI is soooo dumb it's basically impossible to make something that works!
The context windows are only so large. Once you give it too much to juggle, it starts doing crazy shit.
Boilerplates are fine, they can even usually stub out endpoints.
Also the cheap model access is often a lot less useful than the enterprise stuff. I have access to three different services through work and even inside GPT land there are vast differences in capability.
Claude Code has this REALLY useful implementation of agents. You can create agents with their own system prompts. Then the main context window becomes an orchestrator; you tell it what you're looking for and tell it to use the agents to do the work. The main window becomes a project manager with a mostly empty context window, it farms out the requests to the agents which each have their own context window. Each new task is individual, The orchestrator makes sure the agents get the job done, none of the workloads get so large that stuff goes insane.
It's still not like you can say, go make me this game then argue with it for a couple of hours and end up with good things. But if you keep the windows small, it can crap-out a decent function/module if you clarify you want to focus on security, best practice, and code reusability. They're also not bad at writing unit tests.
Something like speckit is necessary to make big, sweeping changes that continue past the context window
Interesting project, thanks for sharing
Why no one critisize ShitHub?
