Update contributor guidelines regarding AI spam - #24510
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
the
documentation
|
Just an initial draft, can probably tighten up and or expand on some of the wording |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #24510 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 81.27% 81.27% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 1116 1116
Lines 395017 395017
Branches 395017 395017
==========================================
- Hits 321055 321044 -11
- Misses 55166 55174 +8
- Partials 18796 18799 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| - **Calls out unknowns and assumptions**. It's okay to not fully understand some bits of AI generated code. You should comment on these cases and point them out to reviewers so that they can use their knowledge of the codebase to clear up any concerns. For example, you might comment "calling this function here seems to work but I'm not familiar with how it works internally, I wonder if there's a race condition if it is called concurrently". | ||
|
|
||
| If we see multiple PRs being created in a short amount of time, especially from | ||
| a first time contributor, and we suspect AI involvement, we are at liberty to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this is just a draft currently, but just wanted to share my thoughts! I think something like "we believe them to be completely created via AI" as opposed to "we suspect AI involvement" could be more apt wording? Given that DF is open to contributions where the author is using AI for assistance, whereas (to my understanding) what we're looking to temper is "AI slop" (AI output that hasn't been checked, is being spammed, has no human involvement, etc)
Again, just my 2 cents here, feel free to push back!
Rich-T-kid
left a comment
Rich-T-kid
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This all make sense to me. I agree with @saadtajwar point about making a distinction between AI involvement and blind AI slop
4 participants
From the discussion here:
Updating our contributing guidelines, specifically to target cases where we see spam PRs from AI origins especially from new contributors. Aiming to set some rules/guidelines around this, and also hopefully make any agents involved at least reconsider before spamming