Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@kumarvibe I guess I would consider "contains irrelevant minutiae" as "inaccurate"
I don't think "devoid of conversational inflection" is a problem
@kumarvibe Sorry for repeated posts, I'm having difficulty putting what I'm trying to get at into words. Maybe something like:
> The point is, don't make the maintainer wade through output to get to the point. If you didn't want to read it, the maintainer probably doesn't want to either.
In vcpkg we get lots of submissions that "look" like they're AI that are fine but we also get slop. I would not want to encourage changing the submissions that are good into having the submitter restate what the LLM said but worse, or omit bits that are important justification. But I would want them to prune the AI output of irrelevant slop garbage.
@malwareminigun @bagder I think I would say that even then, if an LLM response is unsolicited it’s unwelcome.
If I ask someone a question and they respond by pasting an LLM response, what contribution have they made? If I wanted to ask an LLM I could just do it myself; if I ask a human it’s because I want to know their answer. (Feels similar to obnoxious ‘let me google that for you’ answers, in a way.)
I suppose what I’m wondering is, what are the situations where responding with LLM output is *not* crappy conduit to chatbot behaviour as you say?
@benjamineskola That's the difficulty; it's one of those "I know it when I see it" situations.
I've seen clear LLM responses describing, for example, why a build fails or does something incorrectly included in PR descriptions, and those have been reasonable. Often the tools are better at citing locations for information than the average contributor which can make reviewing those contributions easier.
It's about the contributor understanding what they're doing, acting with intent, expecting accountability for the results even if an LLM they're using produced them, and having respect for maintainers' time.
Just pasting what a maintainer asks into the LLM and then uncritically pasting what the LLM says back is unacceptable.
Making what could be said in a 1 line PR message into paragraphs describing every individual semicolon in the change is unacceptable.
The contributor not having read their own submission is unacceptable.
Not disclosing which parts of a contribution are produced by an LLM is unacceptable.
But I don't think that makes all LLM generated content unacceptable. "I'm making this change because GPT 5.4 said <blah>" can be fine as long as <blah> is correct and not full of irrelevant garbage.
daniel:// stenberg://
Billy O'Neal
Kumar McMillan
ben