How I get to "not including AI tools in authored-by metadata is wrong" in three easy steps:
• AI is ethically wrong, and to a degree that completely overshadows practical concerns.
• OSS projects acting in the common best interest therefore have an ethical duty to reject AI-extruded contributions.
• Hiding the use of AI tooling in PR descriptions is lying about the ethical impact of those contributions and makes upholding codes of ethics more difficult.
Will people lie? Yeah. Will they try to get you to accept slop PRs so that they can get the clout of having contributed? Yep. Will some of those make it by you? Probably... code review on its own is an insufficient tool for catching defects, and AI is inherently a defect.
Is your own code AI-free? No, probably not, for the reasons above?
Does that let you off the hook from having to oppose AI? Absolutely the fuck not, what's wrong with you, why are you even *thinking* that, holy shit.
"I might not do 100% of the good I set out into the world to do, so I might as well actively cause harm" is not a winning moral argument. I do not understand why it's being advanced as a serious position worth considering.
That's the kind of troll response that I used to block replies over, not something that gets defended in multiple thousands of words long posts or OSS contribution policies.
What are we even doing here, people? Some of you need to touch Jesus and find grass or something wtf.
Cassandra is only carbon now
The Orange Theme