upvote

points

by rurban7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby losvedir6 hours ago|
next
[-]
It's interesting to see this perspective in the wild. In the age of AI I wonder what "massive value" your PR is bringing to the maintainer. $1 worth of tokens?
reply
upvoteby rurban6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As explained: New features. Bugfixes. Better analysis.

Only stoneagers would say that they are better than a good AI.

reply
upvoteby ecshafer5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I regularly find the code output of opus and gpt 5.5 to be garbage. Overly verbose, unnecessary abstractions, strange duplication of concepts across objects, unnecessary copying of objects and creation of objects. I have found its much more useful to just ping pong some ideas, have it generate helper methods, and do the code implementation by hand.

I guess I am a stoneager.

reply
upvoteby dofm3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think this is one of the grand realisations, and it is why local models are much, much more of a threat to the "metered intelligence as a global utility" business model.

As an AI-cynic I am much more interested in learning how AI solves my problems (of which I have many), not how it can revolutionise programming. How about it revolutionises me not experiencing task paralysis first.

reply
upvoteby throawayonthe4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
not to throw this word around, but,

> Only stoneagers would say that they are better than a good AI.

projection? lack of confidence in your own abilities? why make such a sweeping statement

reply
upvoteby simbosambo4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby losvedir4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This thread is in the context of community PRs in open source projects. So it's not about AI or not, it's about maintainers using AI vs random contributors using AI.

My point is that with AI, where the actual code generation is easy, there's little value in community PR contributions anymore.

reply
upvoteby rurban3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Hmm. I've read that differently. Maybe you are right. So he is going the GNU/FSF direction avoiding the minefield of external contributions
reply
upvoteby dofm3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Only stoneagers would say that they are better than a good AI.

I am only a bit above average and I clearly still write better code than a good AI.

The only question left in my mind, alas, is whether that is enough to earn a living.

I mean: it is clear that in every domain except for programming, a talented XYZer can do better than an appropriate LLM trained to do XYZ (except perhaps in some absolutely exhausting pattern recognition tasks).

So I am not sure why we see our own field as different. A sort of inverted Gell-Mann amnesia?

reply
upvoteby bpicolo7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I mean, aren't you kind of proving the poster's point?

Fork away. If you want to put in the meaningful effort required to maintain and improve upon a project as significant as Godot, and feel that AI is a mechanism you want in order to do so, go for it. Clearly, the maintainers don't feel that that's the best approach to create the product they want to create, and they are not required to accede to the sense of entitlement of the community.

reply
upvoteby rurban6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Even before AI it was trivial to setup a continuous merge script. I did that several years for several projects which refused my PR's.

Nowadays it's even more trivial.

And a community is more of a burden than an advantage nowadays. Users are ok, but a community not so. See python, perl, ruby, node and countless others.

reply