On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 11:23:53PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > I think we're going about this the wrong way. What we want is high > quality contributions. If they are high quality, who cares if they > are AI-generated or not?
Recently 2 people sent 1,000 patches over 2 hours. Care to check each and every patch for 'quality'? :) Only the beginning. > > If we get a contribution which is sloppy, it could be because the Schloppy, not sloppy :) I.e. tells. Turn of phrase, certain 'shapes' in the code/commit msgs, newcomer/recently reactivated? Sent a bunch of mails across many subsystems? etc. To be scaleable the check has to be very quick. In the end it'll sadly probably just have to be 'newcomer?'. It sucks but this is existential. > This isn't actually a new problem. In the pre-AI era, we would Sorry you're completely wrong, it's entirely a new problem. Nobody could drive thousands of at least plausible patches end-to-end with little to no input in the past. INCLUDING replies. > If AI is making the review problem more challenging, the good news is > that there are ways that AI can help. For example Sashiko can help Sashiko only checks if the code is buggy or not, not whether it's worth having or is a total mess or not. So completely unhelpful (speaking from experience). > I also suspect it should be possible to use something like Jev or some > other System One LLM to help with an initial prioritization for the > patch, and then have that prioritization be set in patchwork. Each Using AI to detect AI right now works, who knows in the future. But that's an arms race which we'll eventually lose. Which also costs money... > Using AI-assited priotization may have some collateral damange because > it might not get the prioritization correct. But ultimately, if we Any solution will incur collateral damage, sadly inevitable. -- Cheers, Lorenzo
