• Gawdl3y@pawb.socialEnglish
    33·
    7 hours ago

    The alternative here is they don’t allow it and get a bunch of MRs sneakily using AI anyway but not disclosing it. I’d rather be aware that an MR was made with AI than not, personally, so I think this is probably the right move.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      4 hours ago

      I mean also shouldn’t somebody be reviewing these MRs? I’m an infra guy not a programmer but doesn’t it like, not really matter how the code in the MR was made as long as it’s reviewed and validated?

    • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      If one wants to avoid software with AI code then being aware which MRs need replacing helps. However, accepting it encourages it more and makes it less fesible that you could prune all the MRs written in part by AI. Disclosing it will become worthless if it becomes the norm.

      • Attacker94@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        If the code is good I don’t have an issue with it being merged even if ai was used, that being said I bet the obvious outcome is that either people ignore the policy and nothing changes or they comply and most reviewers focus on the non-ai group which is how it was before ai. All in all, this decision can never hurt the development, since as far as I am aware there is no requirement to review an MR.

    • Kay Ohtie@pawb.socialEnglish
      11·
      12 hours ago

      I hate that this is the most accurate answer almost certainly. Maybe it’ll shame people into not submitting more often than it would’ve for people sneaking it in.

  • calcopiritus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    111·
    15 hours ago

    I hope they are prepare for the AI slop DDoS. Curl wasn’t, and they didn’t even state they would welcome AI contributions.