Find your next fun read that wasn’t made using AI! These authors have publicly stated they do not use AI in their writings.
I personally think their criteria for no AI is a bit too much. While I am 100% against slop code, if someone does a PR on my code that adds a constructor or a few getters, I wouldn’t refuse it just because “it’s tainted with AI.”
Yes I would have preferred it if it wasn’t. Yes I will give them a talking to. But I’m not going to refuse their PR either as a human would do the exact same thing as the LLM produced. It’s just unproductive, wasted time and compute for no reason.
And with a fully against AI policy, that just makes people hide their usage of AI, making it even harder to find the slop code.
I would most certainly give them a talking to for trying to add constructors, getters, and setters!
Idk, given that we can’t really conclusively prove that anything post-2022 is slop-free, don’t you think setting a no-AI policy is still good for setting social expectations? And making people spend effort to conceal AI work is not a bad thing, since one problem with slop-PRs is that they are low-effort.
And I use tons of old projects that haven’t made an anti-AI declaration (and have to use a bunch that are slop-permissive e.g. the kernel), but I still appreciate every one that does.
I’m not against a policy. I’m just choosing a policy like “99.9% of slop will get rejected” policy .
Although I never really experienced bad low effort PRs. Either it was small changes with no other ways to do X, which I merged with a “please don’t use AI in the future, it’s bad blah blah blah”… or the entire project forked, updated to an unstable version, and full on slop that I reject
