Marc Haber <[email protected]> wrote on 23/07/2026 at 18:09:35+0200:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:00:50PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >>Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote on 23/07/2026 at 10:00:13+0200: >>> If I push some work-in-progress, experimental code to a branch >>> just to see how it would go through CI, and someone else decides to >>> extract that crappy code from my branch and ship it, I think the problem >>> is with someone else, not me. >> >>Nowhere did I state that humans can't do crap. It doesn't me that we >>should push automated systems to do more crap based on these grounds. > > But why should we not let us be assisted in doing crap if we're going > to do crap anyway? Bad people are going to do AI assisted crap, good > people are going to produce less crap if they are allowed to use > assistance of their choice. Because we produce 10 times the crap 10 times faster, which has a significant impact and produces more strain? > We let people use arcane workflows maintaining their packages (whether > we like them or not), which makes the entry hurdle to understand their > packages higher. Forbidding modern ways of working (whether we like > them or not) also raises that bar. I'm not forbidding anything and it's not my intent. I expect humans to review their gen-AI work before pushing it, that's all. > Is that really what we want to do? What I want to do is to demand those using these tools to not give up their skills and intellect in favour of letting an LLM do all the job. >>> I think that "The submitter is solely responsible for the submitted >>> work" is sufficient in that case: I would be solely responsible for >>> pushing WIP stuff to a branch (and that's fine), and someone else would >>> be solely responsible for deciding that that code should be shipped. >> >>Until you (or your agent) decides not to push in WIP but rather directly >>on main. > > If we repeat talking to "commit" or "push" as being the bad point, why > don't we just forbid AI tools to commit or push? I would probably > actually be WITH that rule. Maybe you sould re-read the ballot option I proposed? -- PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
