• Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I wonder if the influx of slop contributions can be stemmed by a legal document that makes the contributor legally liable for their submission.

    Seems like lawyers have been learning the hard way to be accountable for their slop, perhaps these lessons can be leveraged in the open source community.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Legally liable for what? Just being bad code? How are you going to enforce that against some kid in another country?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Real “these kids would be very upset if they could read” situation. Who bothers to pick through the whole EULA before submitting?

      Like any open source mass contribution project that’s gained too much popularity, you need extra firebreaks in between the Open Submission and Final Product.

      That means adding manpower to submission review, QA, etc, which public projects don’t often have.

      Sort of the Achilles Heel of the open source community. AI is just making the vulnerability extra glaring.

    • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      That would be a closing a gate after the horses have escaped situation.

      Letting unverifiable code in would damage to developers and users that wouldn’t be easy to disentangle and erode trust in the product, killing it.

    • subignition@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      It’s time to start putting maintainers’ attention behind a paywall. $50 refundable deposit to submit a PR, forfeited if it’s obvious AI slop