[awesan]

It's nice that people are taking this up, and one of the main benefits of open source in the first place. I have my doubts that this will succeed if it's just one guy, but maybe it takes on new life this way and I would never discourage people from trying to add value to this world.

That said I increasingly have a very strong distaste of these AI generated articles. They are long and tedious to read and it really makes me doubt that what is written there is actually true at all. I much prefer a worse written but to the point article.

[Aurornis]

I agree completely. I know everyone is tired of AI accusations but this article has all of the telltale signs of LLM writing over and over again.

It’s not encouraging for the future of a project when the maintainer can’t even announce it without having AI do the work.

It would be great if this turns into a high effort, carefully maintained fork. At the moment I’m highly skeptical of new forks from maintainers who are keen on using a lot of AI.

[bugufu8f83]

>I agree completely. I know everyone is tired of AI accusations but this article has all of the telltale signs of LLM writing over and over again.

I mean, I'm more worried about the AI writing itself than people calling it out.

The AI articles on HN are an absolute disease. Just write your own damn articles if you're asking the rest of us to read them.

[empath75]

An app that basically reimplements a well documented and tested api is the best possible use case for ai development.

[re]

> it really makes me doubt that what is written there is actually true at all

Indeed, the whole "Ironically, switching from Apache 2.0 to AGPL irrevocably makes the project forkable" section seems misguided. Apache 2.0-licensed software is just as forkable.

[MrDarcy]

The point being we can simply tell our agents to start at the rug pull point and implement the same features and bug fixes on the Apache fork referring to the AGPL implementation.

[bigiain]

> I have my doubts that this will succeed if it's just one guy

Normally, I'd agree with you 100%.

But there are some interesting mitigating circumstances here.

1) It's "just one guy" who's running a fairly complex open source project already, one which uses minio.

2) The stated intention is that the software is considered "finished" with no plans to add any features, so the maintenance burden is arguably way lower than typical open source projects (or forks)

3) they're quite open about using AI to maintain it - and like it or hate it, this "finding and helping fix bugs in complex codebases" seems to be an area where current AI is pretty good.

I'm sure a lot of people will be put off by the forker being Chinese, but honestly, from outside the US right now, it's unclear if Chinese or American software is a more existential risk.

I'll admit I'd never heard of their Pigsty project before, but a quick peek at their github shows a project that's been around for 5 years already, and has pull requests from over a dozen contributors. That's no guarantee this isn't just a better prepared Jia Tan zx utils supply chain attack, but at least it's clearly not just something that's all been created by one person over 2 or 12 months.

[skybrian]

At this point the complaints about AI-written articles are worse than the articles. It's like nit-picking about bad kerning. Focus on the content.

[awesan]

I am sorry about that. What I am saying is that it's hard to trust the content given the context. And more so these articles are extremely verbose with a lot of BS in them, so it makes getting to the "content" a lot more work for me.

In any case I had one paragraph about the content and one side-note about the writing style. Every single reply except one focused on the side-note, including you.

[jonathrg]

I have no reason to trust that the fork itself is competently maintained when the author did not even bother to write the announcement.

[bigiain]

The author is Chinese and not a native English speaker. I will happily give them a pass on using GenAI to "write the announcement".

[surgical_fire]

I'm generally fully in agreement that AI writing is bad.

But this is one of the few cases where it might be acceptable.

Author is not a native speaker; in an announcement that a known project is being forked for maintenance the occasional odd phrasing and possible errors in grammar could sound unprofessional.

I wonder if in such cases a better use of AI would be to try to write it yourself and just ask a LLM to revise instead? Maybe with some directive to "just point out errors in syntax and grammar, and factual mistakes. No suggestions on style"?