I am a user to sympy only (actually of sympy.physics.mechanics), too old and too ignorant to contribute, but I follow the discussions. I had wondered before, why anybody would push a PR he/she did not do him/herself -and might not even understand- , but Jason told me people are so eager to get into GSoC, and they need at least one PR merged. I can understand people like Oscar: They are willing to teach others to improve, but surely are not interested in conversing with some LLM, a non-person.
My concern is this: if key members / reviewers get too frustrated with AI and reduce their work, sypmy will suffer. So, I think, reviewers should be very strict, even erring on the "wrong" side: If a PR looks like created by AI, close it! But, as I said above, just the opinion of an interested old user, Peter Oscar schrieb am Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2026 um 17:42:04 UTC+1: > An article yesterday in the register talking about AI spam PRs on GitHub: > https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/03/github_kill_switch_pull_requests_ai/ > > GitHub are apparently looking into whether anything can be done to improve > this: > https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/185387 > > The article quotes someone summarizing the problems. I agree with all > of these points: > > - Review trust model is broken: reviewers can no longer assume authors > understand or wrote the code they submit. > - AI-generated PRs can look structurally "fine" but be logically > wrong, unsafe, or interact with systems the reviewer doesn't fully > know. > - Line-by-line review is still mandatory for shipped code, but does > not scale with large AI-assisted or agentic PRs. > - Maintainers are uncomfortable approving PRs they don't fully > understand, yet AI makes it easy to submit large changes without deep > understanding. > - Increased cognitive load: reviewers must now evaluate both the code > and whether the author understands it. > - Review burden is higher than pre-AI, not lower. > > The article quotes someone saying > """ > I'm generally happy to help curious people in issues and guide them > towards contributions/solutions in the spirit of social coding," he > wrote. "But when there is no widespread lack of disclosure of LLM use > and increasingly automated use – it basically turns people like myself > into unknowing AI prompters. That's insane, and is leading to a huge > erosion of social trust. > """ > That's basically how I feel about the situation although I would go > further. Reviewing these PRs is not like being an AI prompter because > the human using the AI behaves effectively like a broken AI. You would > get better, more trustworthy results much more quickly if you were > prompting the AI directly yourself. > > -- > Oscar > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/2b22ca9f-7b71-4351-999d-089dcea1ab68n%40googlegroups.com.
