In fact, most PRs were flawed and needed significant work from my side before they could be merged. Often, more time than the contributor invested. So any argument that slop is going to ruin a project because it has an AGENTS.md is completely disconnected from reality. As far as we know, Jia Tan was not an LLM. We’ve been complaining about code quality for decades (remember discoveryd?). (2/6)

What SHOULD concern you is how processes and gatekeeping are set up and breaking down. A project is merging PRs/publishing new versions at a significant higher pace than before? THAT’S a red flag. LLM review can be used as a tool to improve existing review – or as a Potemkin-village-style faux process full of Markov-chain sycophantic glazing combined with hallucinated 0-days. (3/6)

Of course, circling back, thanks to LLMs, the absolute number of contributions skyrocketed which means the number of trash PRs went brrr. Because ultimately what the current crop of AI is, is LEVERAGE for existing skills. If you don’t know what you’re doing, you will cause lots of harm. As I wrote the other day, this is a huge problem. (4/6)

Firstly because it overwhelms hands-on maintainers like me. When I waste hours of my time on humans’s subpar PRs, I can at least lie to myself that I’ve made the world better by teaching impressionable souls useful skills. This is obviously not true if I’m talking to an emphatically soulless Claude. (5/6)

@hynek way to call us all out :-) sure we were mostly shouting into the void back then too with reviews on low quality stuff, but at least the void didn't reply back with an essay starting "you're absolutely right"