Anyone else suspect commercial game engine are doing this to attack their FOSS (free open source software) competitor?
Unlike other engines Godot asks nothing of its users. No money, no tie in to their sales platform. It's literally just good free software anyone is invited to try.
Sad to see it dealing with this. FOSS may be under a kind of intentional AI attack.
yes, exactly my thoughts. what if the AI-slop pull request onslaught is a way of the feudalists to weaken the FOSS community and on the long run make themselves irreplaceable? seems to be happening to a lot of maintainers
Hanlons razor.. probably just lots and lots of peaple + stupidity. But it could very well be both..
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?
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
But what polices that? And what's to stop humans pasting in the AI code, which may look like human code, just behave poorly or contain hallucinations.
Write tests and actually do the practice of testing every single line with no regression testing. That will solve the AI problem. Since if it does work, there is no problem. If doest work just remove it. If it does work, who cares if it's AI or not?
Maybe big companies and projects with lots of people do white tests, but indie devs don't. FOSS is not the well organized machine you may have it confused for.
Humans in the loop? Code would have to be read and understood by the human, in relation to the problem being resolved, and the rest of the code base it may or may not interact with... And that's difficult.
If ai slip vibe code is so shitty, then it should be pretty easy for humans to detect it and shut down without wasting too much time right?
No, it's shitty because it's complicated, looks correct, but actually filled with errors and hallucinations. Including libraries that may not exist, and that leaves code open to injection attacks (where people make fake libraries/dependies based on commonly hallucinated code, then package them with genuine FOSS software which is now playing cover for malware/viruses).
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.
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?
AIs are better at that than most humans lol
AI can do that. At least well enough to not help, and it would make actual human-generated code harder.
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.