Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

aei :neofox_upside_down: @aei@pleroma.envs.net (2026-08-31 05:25:35)
if AI is the future of coding then maybe AI people should pay developers of projects they like actual real money and politely ask them to use AI instead of overwhelming them by mass sending the equivalent of used underwear.

instead of gifting me something actually useful, you give me a relic of a conversation you had with a rubber duck, somehow saying that this is both "useful to me" and "worthy of listing you as a contributor", which both can be debatable.

if AI truly thinks and makes competent code, then you, the AI-assisted contributor, are worthless to me, because i can do everything you do with the tool you shill so frequently

anyways, to my main point, i think AI-assisted contributors are misunderstood.

some of them genuinely believe in the tech and believe that showing you their wacky homebrewed contraption is worthy of your time, which is debatable since it's of no value to you compared to raw tokens or even the money spent to aquire these tokens.

some of them just want to contribute something to be listed as a contributor, which is a tale as old as time in open source.

some of them want to shill their product to you and whoever else is interacting with the project's development, so whatever interaction they have with you is entirely marketing/PR.

and some just want to attack you with vibecoded backdoors, in that case, no social contract would help and you probably wouldn't even know if this was AI or not. though this takes a lot of planning.

you can attack the process as much as you want but you really want to attack the people because the process can change too quickly.

note that i don't mention wholly AI-generated contributions because that's spam. content that has been orchestrated and sent by an autonomous process is by most definitions considered spam. AI-based ones are just less obvious spam that may or may not be of value.