Hacker News Reader

Comment by _antoniwan | Hacker News Reader

Contributions that are valuable, are valuable. These "No AI Contributions" nonsense is like saying AI art is not art. It's just not valuable for you, has nothing to do with AI. The QCIS project simply doesn't want to go over each PR and see its value? Because AI-generated things are not valuable for them, has nothing to do with AI, PRs, contributions, etc.

My 2 cents.

View on HN

AI generated output is not art. Art is made by humans as an expression of their human experience. AI images are just statistical approximations of others' art

A good way to look at it is if I can use AI to add a feature/fix a bug, so can the maintainers. My doing it adds no value to the project. In projects where I am the maintainer/an employee, I can extract a lot of value from using AI to build, I don't need anyone's help to do it.

To play the devil’s advocate - AI generated code is incompatible with human generated code. I think this is a tradeoff most projects should make, but I can imagine some projects wanting to work the old way. I would question their relevance in the future, but I can respect that.

"Value" of a PR is somewhat overlooking the fact that it's code we're talking about. A great and large feature with terrible bugs has some "value", but you definitely don't want to review that PR for nothing, because it definitely won't be accepted.

There is no need for them to accept AI contributions from third parties. Whenever they want AI code, they can just ask for it themselves, ensuring the model has the correct context and specifications in the prompt.

the argument is not that AI PRs are inherently not valuable. but if you have to spend a lot of time triaging them because of slop AI PRs it is just draining and inefficient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com