I think moving off of GitHub to their own forge would be a good first step to reduce this spam.
Time to become a plumber!
Codeberg Anubis when?
Damn, Godot too? I know Curl had to discontinue their bug bounties over the absolutely tidal volume of AI slop reports… Open source wasn’t ever perfect, but whatever cracks in there were are being blown a mile wide by these goddamn slop factories.
I don’t use Godot anymore but this makes me sad. It’s a damn good project.
ot, but any other libre 1s u rec.?
who d 🖕 r ya’ll voting on this‽ I aint asking you.
B cuz u talk liek ths
Before hitting submit I’d worry I’ve made a silly mistake which would make me look a fool and waste their time.
Do they think the AI written code Just Works ™? Do they feel so detached from that code that they don’t feel embarrassment when it’s shit? It’s like calling yourself a fictional story writer and writing “written by (your name)” on the cover when you didn’t write it, and it’s nonsense.
I would think that they will have to combat AI code with an AI code recognizer tool that auto-flags a PR or issue as AI, then they can simply run through and auto-close them. If the contributor doesn’t come back and explain the code and show test results to show it working, then it is auto-closed after a week or so if nobody responds.
From what I have seen Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. seem to be running bots that are going around and submitting updates to open source repos with little to no human input.
You guys, it’s almost as if AI companies try to kill FOSS projects intentionally by burying them in garbage code. Sounds like they took something from Steve Bannon’s playbook by flooding the zone with slop.
I’d worry I’ve made a silly mistake which would make me look a fool and waste their time.
AI bros have zero self awareness and shame, which is why I continue to encourage that the best tool for fighting against it is making it socially shameful.
Somebody comes along saying “Oh look at the image is just genera…” and you cut them with “looks like absolute garbage right? Yeah, I know, AI always sucks, imagine seriously enjoying that hahah, so anyway, what were you saying?”
Not good enough, you need to poison the data
I don’t want my data poisoned, I’d rather just poison the AI bros.
Yeah but then their Facebook accounts will keep producing slop even after they’re gone.
Tempting, but even that is not good enough as another reply pointed out
the data eventually poisons itself when it can do nothing but refer to its own output from however many generations of hallucinated data
LLM code generation is the ultimate dunning Kruger enhancer. They think they’re 10x ninja wizards because they can generate unmaintainable demos.
They’re not going to maintain it - they’ll just throw it back to the LLM and say “enhance”.
Sigh, now in CSI when they enhance a grainy image they AI will make a fake face and send them searching for someone that doesn’t exist, or it’ll use a face of someone in the training set and they go after the wrong person.
Either way I have a feeling they’ll he some ENHANCE failure episode due to AI.
Do they think the AI written code Just Works
yes.
literally yes.
It’s insane
That’s how you know who never even tried to run the code.
Couldn’t you just set up actual AI/LLM verification questions, like “how many r’s in strawberry?”
Or even just have an AI / Manual contribution divide. Wouldn’t stop everything 100% but might help the clean-up process better
Those kind of challenges only work for a short while. Chatgpt has solved the strawberry one already.
That said, I wish these AI people would just create their own projects and contribute to them. Create a LLM fork of the engine, and go nuts. If your AI is actually good, you’ll end up with a better engine and become the dominant fork.
People who submit AI-generated code tend to crumble, or sound incomprehensible, in the face of the simplest questions. Thank goodness this works for code reviews… because if you look at AI CEO interviews, journalists can’t detect the BS.
They don’t want to do it in a corner where nobody can see, they want to push it on existing projects and attempt to justify it.
They also want the safety net of the maintainers. It’s cowardice really.
Use open source maintainers as free volunteers check whether your AI coding experiment works.
There’s a joke in science circles that goes something like this:
“Do you know how they call alternative medicine that works? Just regular medicine.”
Good code made by LLM should be indistinguishable from code made by an human… It would simply be “just code”.
It’s hard to create a project the size of Godot’s and not have a human in the loop somewhere filtering the slop and trying to create a cohesive code base. At that poin they either would be overwhelmed again or the code would be unmaintainable.
And then we would go full circle and get to the same point described by the article.
They can fork Godot and let their LLMs go at it. They don’t have to use the Godot human maintainers as free slop filters.
But of course, if they did that, their LLMs would have to stand on their own merits.
You could also ask users to type the words fuck or shit in the description somewhere. LLMs cannot do that AFAIK.
How about asking it to write a short political speech on climate change. Then, just count the number of rhetoric devices and em-dashes. A human dev wouldn’t be bothered to write anything fancy or impactful when they just want to submit a bug fix. It would be simple, poorly written, and filled with typos. LLMs try to make it way too impressive and impactful.
Am I going to have to start adding typos to my text on purpose?
well godot games couldn’t get much slower, so
What people don’t realize is that AI does not write good code unless you tell it to. I am playing a lot with AI doing the writing, while I give it specific prompts, but even then, very often it changes code that was totally unnecessary. And this is the dangerous part.
I believe the only thing repo owners could do is use AI against AI. Let the blind AI contributors drown in work by constantly telling them to improve the code, and by asking critical questions.
Ohhh, that’s what I was missing, just tell it to write good code, of course.
“Okay, ChatGPT. Write me a game that will surpass Metal Gear. And make sure the code is actually good.”
It sounds crazy, but it can have impact. It might follow some coding standards it wouldn’t otherwise.
But you don’t really know. You can also explicitly tell it which coding standards to follow and it still won’t.
All code needs to be verified by a human. If you can tell it’s AI, it should be rejected. Unless it’s a vibe coding project I suppose. They have no standards.
But you don’t really know. You can also explicitly tell it which coding standards to follow and it still won’t.
That’s the problem with LLMs in general, isn’t it? It may give you the perfect answer. It may also give you the perfect sounding answer while being terribly incorrect. Often, the only way to notice is if you knew the answer in the first place.
They can maybe be used to get a first draft for an E-Mail you don’t know how to start. Or to write a “funny” poem for the retirement party of Christine from Accounting that makes cringe to death on the spot. Yet people treat them like this hyper competent all-knowing assistant. It’s maddening.
Exactly. They’re trained to produce plausible answers, not correct ones. Sometimes they also happen to be correct, which is great, but you can never trust them.
Obviously you have no clue how LLM’s work and it is way more complex than just telling it to weite good code. What I was saying is, that even with a very good prompt, it will make up things and you have to double check it. However, for that you need to be able to read and understand code, which is not the case for 98% of the vibe coders.
So what you’re saying is in order for “AI” to write good code I need to double check everything it spits out and correct it. But sure, tell yourself that it saves any amount of time.
So what you’re saying is directly contradictory to your previous comment, in fact it doesn’t produce good code even when you tell it to.
👍
You’re absolutely right. I haven’t realized that I can just tell it to write good code. Thank you, it changed my life.
I’ve been writting a lot of code with ai - for every half hour the ai needs to write the code I need a full week to revise it into good code. If you don’t do that hard work the ai is going to overwhelm the reviewers with garbage
So, what you’re saying is, you’re not writing code.
I’m writing code because it is often faster than explaining to the ai how to do it. I’m spending this month seeing what ai can do - it ranges from saving me a lot of tedious effort to making a large mess to clean up
I’ve had better success, when using AI agents in repeated, but small and narrow doses.
It’s been kinda helpful in brainstorming interfaces (and I always have to append at the end of every statement “… in the most maintainable way possible.”)
It’s been really helpful in writing unit tests (I follow Test Driven Development), and sometimes it picks up edge cases I would have overlooked.
I wouldn’t blindly trust any of it, as all too often it’s happy to just disregard any sort of error handling (unless explicitly mentioned, after the fact). It’s basically like being paired up with an over-eager, under-qualified junior developer.
But, yeah, you’re gonna have a bad time if you prompt it to “write me a Unix operating system in web assembly”.
I totally get it. I’ve been critical about using AI for code purposes at work and have pleaded to stop using it (management is forcing it, less experienced folk want it). So I’ve been given a challenge by one of the proponents to use a very specific tool. This one should be one of the best AI slop generators out there.
So I spent a lot of time thoroughly writing specs for a task in a way the tool should be able to do it. It failed miserably, didn’t even produce any usable result. So I asked the dude that challenged me to help me refine the specs, tweak the tool, make everything perfect. The thing still failed hard. It was said it was because I was forcing the tool into decisions it couldn’t handle and to give it more freedom. So we did that, it made up the rules themselves and subsequently didn’t follow those rules. Another failure. So we split up the task into smaller pieces, it still couldn’t handle it. So we split it up even further, to a ridiculous level, at which point it would definitely be faster just to create the code manually. It’s also no longer realistic, as we pretty much have the end result all worked out and are just coaching the tool to get there. And even then it’s making mistakes, having to be corrected all the time, not following specs, not following code guidelines or best practices. Another really annoying thing is it keeps on changing code it shouldn’t touch, since we’ve made the steps so small, it keeps messing up work it did previously. And the comments it creates are crazy, either just about every line has a comment attached and functions get a whole story, or it has zero comments. As soon as you say to limit the comments to where they are useful, it just deletes all the comments, even the ones it put in before or we put in manually.
I’m ready to give up on the thing and have the use of AI tools for coding limited if not outright stopped entirely. But I’ll know how that discussion will go: Oh you used tool A? No, you should be using tool B, it’s much better. Maybe the tools aren’t there now, but they are getting better all the time, so we’ll benefit any day now.
When I hear even experienced devs be enthusiastic about AI tools, I really feel like I’m going crazy. They suck a lot and aren’t useful at all (on top of the thousand other issues with AI), why are people liking it? And why have we hedged the entire economy on it?
I’ve started using it as an interactive rubber duck. When I’ve got a problem, I explain it to the AI, after which it gives a response that I ignore because after explaining it, I figured it out myself.
AI has been very helpful for finding my way around Azure deploy problems, though. And other complex configuration issues (I was missing a certificate to use
az login). I fixed problems I probably couldn’t have solved without it.But I’ve lost a lot of time trying to get it to solve complex coding problems. It makes a heroic effort trying to combine aspects of known patterns and algorithms into something resembling a solution, and it can “reason” about how it should work, but it doesn’t really understand what it’s doing.
Which is strange, because Azure’s documentation is complete dogshit.
We were trying to solve something at work (send SMTP messages using OAuth authentication, not rocket science) and Azure’s own chatbot kept on making up non-existent server commands, rest endpoints that don’t exist, and phantom permissions that needed to be added to the account.
Seriously; fuck Azure, fuck Copilot. Made a task that should have taken hours, take weeks.
Nah bro U just prompting wrong trust me bro just one more tool.
/S
You will need more than a month to figure out what its good for and what not, and to learn how to effectively utilize it as a tool.
If can properly state a problem, outline the approach I want, and can break it down into testable stages, it can be an accelerator. If not, it’s often slop.
The most valuable time is up front design and planning, and learning how to express it. Next up is the ability to quickly make judgement calls, and to backtrack without getting bogged down.
Maybe it’s work and it’s required 🤷♂️
Why not just write the code over that week?
That is a question I’n trying to answer. Until I know what ai can do I can’t have a valid opinion.
We know what “AI” can do.
- Create one of the largest and most dangerous economic bubbles in history.
- Be a massive contributor to the climate catastrophe.
- Consume unfathomable amounts of resources like water, destroying the communities that need them.
- Make personal computing unaffordable. (And eventually any for of offline computing; if it’s up to these bastards we’ll end up back with only mainframes and dumb terminals, with them controlling the mainframes).
- Promote mass surveillance and constant erosion of privacy.
- Replace search engines making it impossible to find trustworthy information on the Internet.
- Destroy the open web by drowning it on useless slop.
- Destroy open source by overwhelming the maintainers with unusable slop.
- Destroy the livelihood of artists and programmers using their own stolen works as training data, without providing a useable replacement for the works they would have produced.
- Infect any code they touch with such an amount of untraceable bugs that it becomes unusable and dangerous (see windows updates since they replaced their programmers with copilot, for instance.
- Support the parasitic billionaire class and increase the wealth divide even more.
- Make you look like a monstrous moronic asshole for supporting all that shit.
It maybe being able to save you five minutes of coding in exchange for several hours of debugging (either by you or by whoever is burdened with your horrible slop) is not worth being an active contributor to all that monstrous harm on humanity and the world.
Half of the worlds workplaces are forcing employees to use AI and show proof it was used.
So… leave those already doomed workplaces?!?
Yeah you’re right they should all starve to death instead
If your country lets unemployed people starve its ripe for revolution
Hard to revolt when you’re starving. So people work, and they eat.
Starving is THE motivator for giving the ruling class the french treatment. Look up what started most revolutions: Its starving
Sounds like that couple that kept rescuing cats that were promptly eaten by coyotes.
Not sure why you’re getting down votes, AI is a good tool when used properly.
Its not, its an abomination that should be wiped of the face of this earth and its shills should be shunned
Just get one of those ai agents to review the pull request and auto close ones that don’t need requirements
That can help - but ai reviews still miss a lot of bad code. Still a first pass - if the ai finds something it is rarely wrong - so fix things the ai finds before you bother others, or justify why the ai is wrong. But if all you do is an ai review of ai code you get garbage
Well its a problem of reducing w9rklosd of code reviewers I think this would really cut out the worsted of the worste
I’ll wait.
