Stoat removes all LLM-generated code following user criticism

[singularfutur]

Reverting a few trivial commits because of purity tests is a bad precedent. It rewards the loudest commenters and punishes maintainers.

[imsofuture]

It will be a painful decade until those who have already lost this weird ideological war ever realize it.

[Seattle3503]

This sort of purity policing happens to other open source mission driven projects. The same thing happens to Firefox. Open source projects risk spending all their time trying to satisfy a fundamentally extreme minority, while the big commercial projects act with impunity.

It seems like it is hard to cultivate a community that cares about doing the right thing, but is focused and pragmatic about it.

[Palomides]

what if the users legitimately don't want AI written software?

[minimaxir]

And then you have the "Alas, the sheer fact that LLM slop-code has touched it at all is bound to be a black stain on its record" comments.

[blibble]

maybe a preview of what's to come when the legal system rules the plagiarism machine's output is a derivative work?

[stavros]

I love how people in the thread are like "if I'm going to ask my group of friends to switch to this, I need to know it's not written by security-issue-generator machines", meanwhile at Discord LLMs go brrr:

https://discord.com/blog/developing-rapidly-with-generative-...

[ronsor]

To be fair, many of them are already fleeing Discord over the ID surveillance, so it makes sense that they would be pickier this time.

[latexr]

No one on the thread is advocating for Discord, so I don’t understand what argument you are making.

[pythonaut_16]

Wastes of time like this are exactly why Stoat/Revolt is unlikely to ever be a serious Discord alternative

[argee]

Could you elaborate on this? I can’t tell whether you mean to say that open source projects run into user-initiated time sinks that detract from their productivity (which is arguably the case for any public facing project), or whether private repositories bypass this type of scrutiny by default which affords them an advantage, or whether this is about the Stoat/Revolt devs specifically and how they choose to spend their time.

[Palomides]

why? I think having a stated policy on LLM use is increasingly unavoidable for FOSS projects

[sodality2]

If only the average open source project got this level of scrutiny actually checking for vulnerabilities. I get that you don't want your private chats leaked by slopcode, but this was a few dozen lines of scaffolding in large software created before LLM coding; it would have been better to register your discontent without making demands, then continue to watch the repo for vulnerabilities. This feels like fervor without any work behind it

[philipwhiuk]

The fun part is this only happens because Claude Code commits its changes.

If you use for example, GitHub Co-Pilot IDE integration, there's no evidence.

[zihotki]

There is also `git commit --amend` available, there are many ways to hide the evidence if one needs.

[cat_plus_plus]

"it's worth considering that there are many people with incredibly strong anti-LLM views, and those people tend to be minorities or other vulnerable groups."

I have pretty low expectations for human code in that repository.

[Seattle3503]

Is that claim even empirically true?

[ronsor]

The response mentioning minorities is obviously bad faith. Even if true, it's not really relevant, and most likely serves as a way to tie LLM use to slavery, genocide, or oppression without requiring rational explanation.

[deadbabe]

If you find yourself having to use LLMs to write a lot of tedious code, you have bad architecture. You should use patterns and conventions that eliminate the tedium, by making things automagically work. This means each line of code you write is more powerful, less filler stuff. Remember the days when you could create entire apps with just a few lines of code? So little code that an LLM would be pointless.

[ronsor]

It seems the thread was brigaded by militant anti-AI people upset over a few trivial changes made using an LLM.

I encourage people here to go read the 3(!) commits reverted. It's all minor housekeeping and trivial bugfixes—nothing deserving of such religious (cultish?) fervor.

[raincole]

At this point perhaps to not disclose AI usage is the right thing to do. Transparency only feeds the trolls, unfortunately.

[logicprog]

What a shame

[longfacehorrace]

Looked at repos of the two loudest users in that thread; either they have none or it's all forks of other projects.

Non-contributors dictating how the hen makes bread.

[ronsor]

In general, caving to online mobs is a bad long-term strategy (assuming the mob is not the majority of your actual target audience[0]). The mob does not care about your project, product, or service, and it will not reward you for your compliance. Instead it only sees your compliance as a weakness to further target.

[0] While this fact can be difficult to ascertain, one must remember that mobs are generally much, much louder than normal users, and normal users are generally quiet even when the mob is loud.

[throawayonthe]

isn't forks of other projects how you usually contribute code on github

[rurban]

Makes a good block list. Vehemently arguing to block AI

[blibble]

most of the anti-AI community have already migrated their repos from Slophub

[ragthr]

Nice move! It is fun to watch the copyright thieves and their companies go into intellectual contortions (militant, purity tests, ideology) if their detrimental activities get any pushback.

[875765465609068]

Nice move smashing those stocking frames! It is fun to watch the knitting pattern thieves and their companies go into intellectual contortions (militant, purity tests, ideology) if their detrimental activities get any pushback.