Hello,
(it's been a while since I was active here) but theses are so
interesting and challenging times that I also want to chime in from the
side lines. I regret not having been at this Timisoara BoF!
As a project lead and senior (non-developing) software "manager" I have
to cope with AI in diverse contexts.
I support Jeroen in saying that AI has come to stay. But also want to
add "for good and bad!" We have to address the bad side, otherwise it
will kill some of the most important aspects of open source - and the
community around it. Immediately to my mind come the following issues:
* readability and understandability of code is suffering
* bloat
* growing danger of malicious code injection (also due to bloat)
* sheer increase of code base - and resulting increase for (non-AI)
review, maintenance, packaging, debugging, etc.
* test bloat (may eventually shrink - but we have to actively address this)
Copyright? Anyone? Licenses? Hahaha.
On a community level we have all heard of the sharp decline of deep and
thorough tech talk that can be searched in archived discussions.
Stackoverflow, OSGeo mailing lists (is that even a thing anymore?),
discord, all in decline. At the same time there is a bloat of
superfluous documentation and innovation stagnates (LLMs are by their
very definition not "creative".
On yet another level (from my business experience) I can see senior
developers burn out by the dozens because they get choked with (often
well meant) submissions, timelines become shorter while projects
accelerate and delivery times shrink. The whole dev-to-prod cycle has
accelerated so much (deliberately and purposefully to maximize output
and efficiency) that it becomes hard to track and stay on top.
Especially for core libraries this is an issue. Really old code base is
fairly safe so far, but the new stuff, oh my!
AI increases efficiency but not necessarily effectiveness.
The worst are textual and presentation bloat (and is already creeping
into regular dialogs and conversation). We ask AI to document the
required functions in a statement of requirements and then let them
transfer it to a requirements specification which then gets copied into
prompts by (human) "engineers" tasking AI agents - which then do -
"something".
Presentations are bloat so much that the receiving end immediately asks
an AI to summarize it to then decide on - what exactly?
OK. This will not be the end of times - yet again. But we are certainly
at a pivotal point in time and must therefore very carefully listen to
those who have built the open source environment so far.
Thank you,
Seven
Am 08.07.26 um 14:27 schrieb Iván Sánchez Ortega via Discuss:
Hey Jeroen,
I disagree with your point of view, because (from where I'm sitting) it seems
biased. You say:
If you code with AI or review PRs, we want you involved and I invite you to
start the conversation [...]
Reading between the lines, it'd seem that people who do **not** use LLMs for
coding or reviews are not equally invited. The anti-LLM and LLM-skeptical
folks deserve the same voice as encouragement than the pro-LLM folks. I don't
think that's currently the case.
If we lose respect and stop being a welcoming community, the harm
lasts longer than any single PR. *We are in this together.* AI-assisted
coding is here to stay, and it also opens doors, [...]
You seem to be asking that the anti-LLM camp should show more respect towards
the pro-LLM camp, and I have to ask for the opposite. When a maintainer says
"no LLM PRs", the submitter should respect and welcome that. If we don't aim
for that, I bet that people are going to feel disrespected and burn out.
--
https://arnulf.us
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
