points by maxbond 1 day ago | 0 comments
I'm wondering if you foresee remaining open to new contributors or focusing on a trusted set of like minded contributors? How much time are you willing to spend enforcing this policy? (To put my cards on the table I think it's good for projects to pursue different and incompatible agendas and if you are volunteering to conduct this experiment I think that is great and genuinely wish you the best, I'm just wondering whether this will become a tarpit that either soaks up all of your time or makes onboarding new contributors take an inordinate amount of time.)
[–] femboyvtuber 1 day ago
[–] maxbond 1 day ago
I agree the onus should be on people not to create a nuisance but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. Descriptively, normatively I agree that people ought to be considerate and reasonable.
[–] femboyvtuber 1 day ago
I do not have a skin in the game for repository being ai vs no ai bit ( and I am biased as I work for one of the major AI labs now, need to put food on the table ) but, not directed toward you --
I genuinely do not understand why so many people that are pro-AI do not understand consent. There are people one comment downdown this tree talking about this being discrimination and harassment. It's not your project, you don't have a human right to contribute to it ... fork it ? direct your tokens elsewhere ? Wwhy the default with AI users seeming to try to nonconsensually force your way in while trying to hide it and consider it a one-up on the maintainer ?
In an ideal world, LLM users would simply steer clear of trying to contribute instead of trying to hide it and direct their energy and tokens elsewhere