Valid position from the Void side AND valid crashout. I’m impressed. A distro absolutely can use policy to enforce a vision to be AI-free on the contributions, and a maintainer can quit if they don’t agree with the distro vision
I agree.
Leaving so abruptly may not be the classiest move but it’s not like one can’t leave if he so decides.
The dev will be fine and so will void. Nothing to see here for now.
the butlerian jihad begins
Do not bring AI review tools into pull requests.
As someone who operates an internal AI code review platform for a large engineering org. Trust me, you want this.
There are countless defects that regularly slip by human review. It’s one of the few places that AI adds immediate, low-risk value.
That aside, though, this is unfortunate. And the author and maintainer of these packages is entirely within their rights to do this as a form of protest.
Absolutionist policies aren’t helpful.
What if the goals of reviewing a PR in Void Linux are different from the goals of reviewing a PR in your org? Are there any possible goals you can think of, where introducing an AI tool would actually be detrimental?
I hate AI and wish it would disappear but you’re right. The automatic PR reviewing LLM at my job genuinely catches a lot of issues that would fly under the radar normally. Obviously a human review is still needed but those downvoting clearly do not work in tech because it’s basically just a fancy CircleCI (well, apparently they’re AI now but before they did that). If it’s wrong, resolve the issue with one click; if it’s right, then its beneficial?
The blanket AI hate is stupid because it drowns out the valid criticisms like energy use, knowledge loss, unmaintainability, etc
those downvoting clearly do not work in tech
Not all turkeys voted for christmas
I’m not saying you are wrong (not saying you are right either), but… your comment sounds a lot like “trust me, I have a conflict of interest” :)
Having used these at my day job I can understand the policy against them. Ours is fairly well tuned by the people who operate it, adapted to our codebase, and its comments are usually on point, but its false positive rate for my own PRs is still in the low double digit percent range (feedback that’s factually wrong, not relevant to the PR, not scoped appropriately, etc). Before all that tuning, back when we first started using it, I probably went days or weeks without seeing a well-founded suggestion from the tool. Incorrect comments still create work for the PR author (investigating, double checking, etc), they create noise for human reviewers, and ambiguity about whether a change is ready to be merged. I read that policy as being against random people pointing their own review tools at PRs for this project, which I assume would be more on the high false positive/high noise end of the spectrum (i.e., not being tuned for this specific project). I can totally see why already busy maintainers would want to spare themselves from a bunch of poorly calibrated noise.
One nice thing about them compared to human reviewers is that you can just tell them to (professionally) fuck off if they’re wrong without hurting their feelings or having an HR conversation.
Trust me, nobody trusts you.
Do you work in tech? How often do you submit PRs? AI reviews are one of the best applications for the technology and non-LLM CI tools have existed for ages to serve a similar but less efficient purpose
I don’t like what AI has done to the software industry but we need to give credit where its due
I gave your mom a PR last night.
Here the pull request and discussion:
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/62351#issuecomment-5641804457
Changes not tested.
