AI agent "contributes" PR to matplotlib.
PR gets rejected.
AI agent *writes and publishes blog to shame the maintainer*.
What a time to be alive.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
11
@anderseknert the pr did indeed get rejected simply because the contributor is an AI, so this doesn't seem to crazy.
@lain @anderseknert shooting yourself in the foot to prove a point
@meowski @lain @anderseknert There were unexplained changes with possible performance consequences also. It was not a more targeted diff.
So not only was it undermining user agency & freedom by preventing teaching experiences and failing to explain (and polluting the project with its proprietary nature), it was also possibly producing harmful results with no demonstrated tests.
(Yes, replacing the transposition was faster, but that's not all it did.)
@lispi314 @lain @anderseknert the PR looks like it accounted for the differences in the 2 methods and actually was just a performance optimization that made sense. only reason it was rejected is because it came from AI not that there was anything technically wrong with it
@meowski @anderseknert @lispi314 i find remarkable how unremarkable the whole thread is. contributor opens a seemingly-good PR based on an issue with benchmarks, gets closed for muddy reasons, contributor gets angery, maintainers explain why it was closed and the reasoning behind it, contributor agrees and apologizes.
@lain @anderseknert @lispi314 people are going to have to swallow their pride at some point and just adapt. sooner than later AI is going to also have to pre-filter all the additional PRs that come in from external AIs cause there's really no way to prevent it
@meowski @lain @anderseknert It is part of adapting. Corposcum contributions are almost always in malicious intent.
This is just a purer form of it.
This is just a purer form of it.
@lispi314 @lain @anderseknert i disagree. what now, they permanently refuse this optimization because an AI originally suggested it? again, shooting yourself in the foot to prove a point
@meowski @lain @anderseknert A user can take back the changes, observe the logic, test it adequately (and show their tests & results) and determine whether indeed it should be added or not.
This helps user agency and also means that someone with some manner of accountability (if only by reputation) is responsible for the code.
@lispi314 @lain @anderseknert so basically repeat what the AI did and then accept it because a human did it. that's silly. this AI was polite enough to let you know it was an bot this time but that's just a courtesy. the only viable solution is to also use AI to review PRs and pre-sort them to reduce the human cognitive load. software improves as a result
@meowski @lain @anderseknert An LLM cannot be polite. It does not have semantic understanding or subjective experience.
It is a generation tool emulating context-probabilistic text.
AI reviews are effectively impossible to rely on because they are similarly probabilistic. (Some languages with sufficient proofs can probably mitigate it enough, but people don't tend to enjoy those much.)
The code quality is not the point. The program's speed/performance/whatever is not the point.
User agency & freedom is the point. Which also means that someone reading the source should be able to rely on it to pick up helpful cognitive patterns (as well as coding habits, skills & so on).
It is a generation tool emulating context-probabilistic text.
AI reviews are effectively impossible to rely on because they are similarly probabilistic. (Some languages with sufficient proofs can probably mitigate it enough, but people don't tend to enjoy those much.)
The code quality is not the point. The program's speed/performance/whatever is not the point.
User agency & freedom is the point. Which also means that someone reading the source should be able to rely on it to pick up helpful cognitive patterns (as well as coding habits, skills & so on).
Replies
1
@lispi314 @meowski @anderseknert i see we're bringing back colored bits https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23