page 9’s wording does state that it is maintainer-estimated, and specifies the terms “low-quality” and “slop” as the qualifier for the 25% figure

I’m not seeing it. This is the sole relevant statement on pg 9 where they simply define AI slop in a general way that avoids tying it in with their measurements:

“AI slop” are low quality AI-generated contributions that are unlikely to be worth the review time they demand.

In addition to the explicit ‘and/or general AI use’ statement, there are several red flags here that make me think this is a low quality study to be taken with salt. Or maybe I’m cynical and using the term ‘slop’ to push a research study is both unusual and suspect.

you’ll see that “slop” in the survey does not refer to AI-driven PRs in general, but to specifically low-quality AI-generated PRs.

This part is actually unclear. The question posed to survey participants that allowed researchers to determine a PR was “AI slop” is left out of the report. And this line under the chart showing “25% slop etc.” is troubling:

Average estimated percentage of incoming PRs that are low-quality and/or AI-generated

How this particular question was framed is of critical importance here and without it, it’s easy to assume that all reported AI use was broadly categorized as “slop”

Sadly I could not find a way to access the full list of questions used in the survey to confirm this.

What would be the point of jumping through these hoops in the first place? As OP pointed out, the disclosure requirement is itself irrelevant due to the amount of scrutiny the code goes through. So we’re forcing disclosure to… shame AI users? Discourage its use?

Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.

Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.

Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?

Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?

Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people. I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.

Because rules have to be enforced, and investing time and effort into detecting and punishing rule-breakers would be a pointless endeavor when, disclosure/AI or not, all code has to be reviewed anyway.

I have to say the same thing I said to the other commenter; I’m really not sure that “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.

Nice attempt at spin but relies too much on readers having room temperature IQ to believe that’s what my argument is. And just to be clear, by ‘Nice attempt’ I’m being sarcastic.

On the contrary, a small piece of text that says “this code deserves more review because humans may not have seen it” is absolutely necessary.

All this is doing is making it so I can hide that I didn’t touch the code.

Why are you assuming that everyone would honestly disclose AI use if it was a rule?

The honest ones that would disclose it to say “this needs more eyes, guys” can still do just that. The dishonest ones that would hide AI use will do exactly that whether it’s a rule or not.

The only difference here is there’s no punitive action to follow for non-disclosure because that would be a gigantic waste of time when, AI or not, all code needs to be reviewed anyway.

Called bullshit as soon as I read they were accusing him of kiddie stuff.

This is why GrapheneOS’s passcode feature is more likely to land you in trouble - it’s too “hostile”

I’d rather it load an empty profile while it wipes everything in the background.

Then you’ve missed the point of the change entirely. Splitting email addresses into public and private-facing addresses is one thing. Reusing passwords is entirely another evin if both are related to securtity.

asking if he used AI on the project is a valid question

Maybe in some scenarios, but reducing years of his work to “how vibey is your code?” with no inquiry whatsoever on the finer technical aspects of his work is telling. They don’t care. They’re more interested in “Are you on my side of the AI wars?”, forcing the issue, because that’s the only ‘contribution’ they can make to the discussion.

It harms the environment, it harms actual developers, it introduces all sorts of legal issues where copyright is only one of them, it locks you in to a vendor, it makes you dependent of giant tech companies that steal your data and want to monetize your work.

Could you elaborate on this a little? I came here as I’m not very knowledgable when it comes to AI and am genuinely curious. Sadly you’re the only person I’ve seen so far that has made coherent (even if broad) arguments against AI.

I know the environment argument is probably the enormous power demand of AI, and as far as the copyright thing goes, I’ve seen first hand how people abuse voice actors’ livelihoods with shitty imitations of their voices that are also completely devoid of anything resembling skill. But how does AI harm developers, lock you in to a specific vendor or make you dependant on giant tech companies?

Enforcing what? It’s up to your email service to adopt the change. The way it currently works was probably okay for the early days of the internet when people had just started using emails, but now that so much private and sensitive financial information passes through your email account, it makes little sense that the same credential you use to login to your email account (email id) is also what you must use when some random website forces you to register in order to access it, just so they can send you massive volumes of unsolicited spam.

Certainly a simpler change with more potential to do good relative to the ease of enforcing a convoluted passkey-slash-usb-slash-save-this-file-somewhere-safe implementation

Amazon/whatever login:

• email: koalalover@schmeemail.com
• password: hunter2

Email login:

• username: chlamidiyasux
• password: hunter3

There. You’ve solved 90% of online fraud that begins with website(s) leaking your credentials and someone combining leaks to gain access to everything in your life via your email (including bank, socials, porn habits, whatever).