{{ message }}
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
|
No worries, I didn't feel offended. Thanks for apologizing. I want to be clear: while I'm open to AI-assisted contributions, those must be disclosed, and it certainly doesn't mean we aren't reviewing them. Every numbered patch still goes through a review process. But at the same time I feel like LLMs can greatly improve the ability to find issues (great for debugging) update documentation or generate tests cases. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello, I’m the person who wrote #19413 (comment).
First off, this comment was less tactful than it should have been. Being overloaded and on the verge of burnout is not good.
I know that many people believe that the use of LLMs is inherently wrong. I am not one of those people. I believe that whether a project should accept LLM-assisted contributions should be entirely up to the maintainers of that project. My concerns are entirely about the impact of insufficiently-reviewed LLM-generated code on the quality of the codebase. If the code is being sufficiently reviewed by humans before being merged, I will consider my concerns addressed.
If this has caused distress for the maintainers, I apologize. Feel free to delete the comment if that would help.
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions