<html><head></head><body><div dir="auto">Hi again,<br><br>Nyall, I'm sorry to see that my message touched a nerve. Sorry. I reread myself and am (un)fortunately unable to find what part of my message triggers that:<br>- the technical aspect of welcoming was about making sure we provide correct and up-to-date materials e.g., it's regular that the install.md file is outdated. It was in no way a call to open doors for AI tools.<br>- on the interaction part: I didn't mean we welcomed warmly any AI-based (attempt of) contribution either. My point was to avoid being unwelcoming with real potential contributors just because they used AI, something the repo guidelines allow them to do. A neutral label as Even updated it to seems a good start, and we can imagine applying the "slop!" one to the PRs that reveal to be of low-quality, allowing us to quickly close and ban the authors after a number of recurrence.<br><br>Anyway, sorry for any misinterpretation my message would have led to.<br><br>For the societal questions you raised, well, I don't think AI is a threat for professional developers only. It is a threat for a number of intellectual activities, a threat for most of us here, at different degrees for now. But who knows in 5 years...? E.g., I've been asked at the French Users meeting why we do not translate QGIS with AI. Translating QGIS is in no way my profession... Translation companies are dying, if not already dead. So yes I completely understand and share your concerns about AI risks and its "insane use" in our society. IMHO the threat takes more and more place if there are more and more AI users, regardless of them being beginner or expert in their domain; they feed the beast.<br><br><br>Greg, there are two different things: people submitting low-quality AI generated code (and these are problems we need to solve quickly), and people understanding what they do and using AI to help them polish the work. I personally probably don't have skills to judge who belongs to which group but this could be a first step of review; I'll leave that to others. My key point as explained above is that, as long as we allow (for good or bad reasons?) AI assisted PR, the second group does not violate our rules, so we have to be welcoming with them. That's all.<br><br>Kind regards,<br>Harrissou</div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto">Le 11 avril 2026 21:08:36 GMT+02:00, Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com> a écrit :</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="com-fsck-k9__plain-text-message-pre"><div dir="auto">Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson@gmail.com> writes:<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-bottom: 1ex; --com-fsck-k9__blockquote-default-border-color: #729fcf;"><div dir="auto"> Advance warning: Emotional reply.<br><br> Why, as a society, can we recognise that it's generally a BAD THING that AI<br> has destroyed the livelihoods of graphic artists and musicians, but are<br> BLIND to the impact it is having on professional software developers? Why<br> MUST we be welcoming and warm to the people who are vandalising OUR form of<br> art, and making it impossible for us to continue in the industry that we've<br> devoted our lives to?<br><br> I'm sorry, but I have absolutely NO sympathy for a new ai-slop contributor<br> to open source. Just like I have no sympathy toward someone flooding<br> spotify with AI written music, making it impossible for real artists to<br> make a living.<br><br> Screw that. It's already thankless enough to be an open source maintainer.<br> Now it's even worse.<br><br> Look after the people who have devoted YEARS of their lives to open source,<br> or you'll lose those.<br><br> /me out<br><br> Nyall<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br>Before I saw your reply, I was going to comment that the "it's unkind to<br>label low-quality LLM-generated content as AI slop" statement, while<br>coming from a place of wanting to be welcoing, is missing the point that<br>submitting low-qualitty LLM-generated content is an offense against the<br>community. We would not be welcoming to people posting intentionally<br>offensive comments (e.g., gratuitous off-topic racial epithets) to<br>issues, and we wouldn't be talking about how it was unwelcoming to just<br>delete them and ban the submitter. This is less different than people<br>that think AI is ok think.<br><br>It is possible that some people submitting AI slop don't undersetand<br>that it is AI slop, and don't understand the harms that LLM-generated<br>content does to projects. Once there's a clear place to point to --<br>which explains that the submitter should not again submit other<br>LLM-generated content -- it might be better to just close with a<br>pointer, rather than label AI and leave open.<br></div></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>