I think it's the least hostile thing they can say, and I respect their decision for their own project.
That said, it still feels like they are unnecessarily hobbling their project. LLMs are tools and they can help you think, research, and code. You can overuse them, yes, but you should embrace them where they help.
not accepting bun's PR for other reasons is totally fine (sounds like it's a core change where more thinking needs to be done), but simply banning all LLM authored PRs is unnecessarily restrictive. Just focus on the quality of the work.
Why review thousands of lines of LLM generated code from some random person you don’t know when you could use an LLM yourself to do the same thing, except with probably a better design and more thoughtful approach?
Maintainers should get to spend their time developing stuff, not just reviewing low effort PRs. The flood of LLM code is changing the balance for the worse for maintainers, and I can totally see why they’d just want to ban it.
But at least you know how the sausage was made by the end. You have no idea how high or low quality any PR from a random person online is, and taking any amount of time to review a PR could be a total waste.
if someone made the same gigantic mess of a PR without LLMs, it would still be rejected, because it is a gigantic mess of a PR.
the low effort part is the problem. what if i made a great, focused, readable PR but had claude write it out? what if i carefully checked and deliberated each line, just as if i had written it myself?
granted, in the real world, 99.9% of slop PRs are written by LLMs. so i thought "okay, reasonable, ban the thing that is most likely to cause problems."
but then how does the "no LLM translators!" rule fit into that view?
It’s the lack of friction that LLMs bring. It’s easy to put in a couple of lines and generate 1000’s of lines of code. Whereas the person would never have done that without LLMs.
I think LLM dev needs to take a better spec driven approach. The vibing is getting to be annoying.
I think the only thing that will save us is smarter models. Slop coders are not going to stop making slop.
They’ll still use even smarter LLMs badly no doubt, but I’m thinking that maintainers of open source projects will be able to more effectively use LLMs to review potential PRs to weed out the truly bad ones quickly.
I guess they could setup a competent openclaw pr review agent. The problem is again - cost. Who is paying for the token usage by open source projects? How many tokens before they exhaust their quota with junk PRs?
Well previously lazy contributors simply would never have made a PR because it was too much work. Now they can have an LLM make a PR with virtually no effort at all.
It’s obviously an imperfect rule, and maybe it’ll change over time. But I am just saying that I understand why open source maintainers are doing this.
There is just no possibility for them to review all the low effort AI slop being thrown their way. Yes, some of it is going to actually be very high quality, but you don’t know that until you review it, which is the whole issue.
Agree, but "no LLMs" locks out good PRs and contributors too.
I hypothesize it may have roughly the same effect as denying all contributions where the author used intellisense 10y ago.
A substantial portion of people who write good code will be using some sort of LLM assistance, even if it is just something like Cursor Tab (autocomplete).
Yes, you'll also hit all of the spammy PR "contributors", but you'd also do so by prohibiting all contributions by people who have a belly button
As per OpenAI themselves, xhigh is only necessary if the agent gets stuck on a long running task. Otherwise it’s thinking trades use so many tokens of context that it’s less effective than high for a great majority of tasks. This has also been my experience.
if you include "it turns out that", you're implying that maybe you thought the same as them in the past, but looked into it, and learned something interesting. if you omit that, you're just correcting them and subtly implying that they aren't as smart as you (e.g. it was obvious to you)
i don't know what else they can say about their own business.. but it's clearly cope.
sure, there's a lot of compliance/legal concerns, but AI is probably already better at reading all the relevant information and encoding that into a system than humans.
I don't think a non-technical person is going to one-shot it, but a technical person could today. The biggest issue would be marketing and maintenance (companies aren't going to buy from a single random person who might abandon the project at a moment's notice)
last i checked, you can't annotate inline with planning mode. you have to type a lot to explain precisely what needs to change, and then it re-presents you with a plan (which may or may not have changed something else).
i like the idea of having an actual document because you could actually compare the before and after versions if you wanted to confirm things changed as intended when you gave feedback
they have pretty fierce competition though, so i doubt this is intentional. my guess is they just have a million things to do and that isn't at the top of the list
what are your goals? it's usually tough to sell things to developers because they are very particular about how they want their software to work, and also would rather build their own tools much of the time (which is increasingly true with AI now).
if you really want to sell it, you should probably make sure that you have customers willing to pay, which means talking to potential customers and getting them on a waitlist. i think it's usually more likely that other people don't care about your software like you do (because you built it to be exactly what you want and know how it works) and even then, aren't willing to pay to use it (or pay very much)
if you're not very concerned about making money and mostly just want something nice for yourself that other people _might_ care about, then sure, go for it! i build software like that all the time
that's pretty much my attitude... build it for me and if others like it and pay for it, great. if not, then i got myself a killer email client.
I already have it almost working with outlook and gmail accounts and have local AI working and analyzing emails and so on. it's really cool (at least for me) and can't wait to share it publicly.
That said, it still feels like they are unnecessarily hobbling their project. LLMs are tools and they can help you think, research, and code. You can overuse them, yes, but you should embrace them where they help.
not accepting bun's PR for other reasons is totally fine (sounds like it's a core change where more thinking needs to be done), but simply banning all LLM authored PRs is unnecessarily restrictive. Just focus on the quality of the work.