AI-generated contributions are not accepted.

Pull requests, patches, documentation, translations, issues, or other contributions that are substantially generated by generative AI or large language models will not be accepted.

Contributors are expected to understand, author, and take responsibility for the work they submit. Tools such as linters, formatters, autocomplete, spellcheckers, and other non-generative development tools are unaffected by this policy.

https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed#ai-generated-contributions

https://github.com/joinloops/loops-server#ai-generated-contributions

We heard you! We are not accepting any AI or agentic code contributions, and will keep building Pixelfed by hand.

https://mastodon.social/@pixelfed/117350705262301318

  • Hiplobbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    How would they know though? If I use Claude to make a contribution and tweak some things, it would be impossible to know unless I actively tell them I used Claude when generating my code?

    • dil@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Prob banning ppl from running agents that are automatically pushing to github and spamming all day

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you’ve seen a typical GenAI pull request, it’s blatantly obvious. If it has been curated well, sure it’s probably not feasible to know, but “slop” is easy to tell, and the target users have very slop contributions.

    • copygirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      “How would they know if my contribution is actually compatible with their open source license? I could just contribute code from an incompatible license, or proprietary codebase, without telling anyone.” This was supposedly an actual argument against FOSS licenses back in the days. Yeah, you can’t be 100% sure, but: You made your intent clear. And that’s honestly what most people care about. Then all you need to do is do some rudimentary checks for quality and maybe do a quick vibe-check (heh) on the person contributing.

      • Hiplobbe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Okey thank you. My question was an actual question, if there was like a “tell” or something! :D

        • wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          There’s dozens.

          Large commits, over documentation, and not being able to answer questions about the OR are good starts usually.

    • Fmstrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      They won’t. These rules are about making sure the author reviews. It’s pretty easy to tell when Claude makes a PR, but it’s impossible to tell you used Qwen, fixed the duplicate code, removed useless verbose comments, and moved things to the right place. Reviewers are perfectly happy with the later.

    • bretton.dev@coves.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s impossible, I’ll never understand why anti ai repos draw such a hard line instead of saying hey we won’t even look at 1000+ LOC PRs or design reworks with no discussion.

      Both of those are pretty reasonable policies that will kill most of the fly by AI requests.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      They won’t…

      Knowing piefed they were using AI, got called out, and are now “banning” it for the optics.

      It would be worse if they actually believed it, but they probably don’t.