Don't want to be too judgemental but does "Self Serve invite link" feature really needs 50 commits, an army of bots, countless nitpicking and 140+ messages? We are not launching Apollo to the Moon here.

I don't know this particular project but seeing threads like this kill any motivation to contribute.

What an absolutely dystopian PR flow.

Shouldn't automation be somewhat useful? All these bot comments — do they really bring more value than they create distractions?

The PR thread looks like this to me:

https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/7lkgdk/video_game_hu...

Wow what an obnoxious and extremely verbose PR flow. Bot overflow

Is this the future of collaborative coding?

When

https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pull/427#issuecomment-30...

results in

https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pull/427#issuecomment-30...

More incredible examples where a LLM flags contributors' pull requests because their comments contain minor grammar errors:

https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pulls?q="our+contributin...

This would be best implemented inline with the textbox of the comment form. If you want to give people feedback on their grammar then do it while they are actually writing - not after. Otherwise you just make an already hard to follow thread even more noisy.

This makes me wonder if AI usage will end up part of job position listings, similar to remote days, if it is not already. How much AI agent will you be able to use/be subjected to? Are people looking for this already when job searching?

I often use the metaphor of LLMs as calculators.

Mathematicians use calculators, and so too do elementary school students, and grocery store clerks, and civil engineers. What each person needs from a calculator can be similar, but would you give a graphing calculator to the store clerk and expect them to be more "productive?"

Admittedly, my metaphor is leaky—and I also can't comment on the participants of the PR—but after reading the comments and the code itself, I'm getting a lot of "here’s a new calculator with a bunch of graphing functions, trigonometric menus, and poem generators—now go do the basic arithmetic you were already doing, but you work for the calculator now" vibes.

Said another way, it took me a lot more time and effort to understand what the bots were saying and if I agreed, than it did for me to formulate my own thoughts and questions.

Like the saying goes, "the best calculator is the one you have with you," and I'd much rather just use my own.

I know there's something to be said for retaining git history when merging, but merging 50 commits is a great way to pollute your commit history.

Some of the commit descriptions: "fix", "fixes", "clean up".

How are these bots still a thing? Who actually wants then???

This profession has gone from rewarding and enjoyable to a confusing, miserable hellscape faster than I possibly could have imagined.

Dear bot,

Fuck off.

Dear humans who advocated for installing the bot, let me use anodyne, US corporate bullshit language so you'll understand:

Your bot does not add value. Get rid of it, before it drives out all voluntary contributors.

There's going to a wrapper around github PRs to summarize these issues, the mess they created in the first place. BTW this is the same guy which has famously stopped hiring engineers

Like we needed more ways to stifle contribution to FOSS projects. Where is the GaaS (gatekeeping as a service) unicorn?

Imagine a contributor forgetting to rinse his message through an AI verbalizer. The horror!

In principle I don't see a problem with bots looking out for grammar mistakes and typos that could confuse readers (so long as it's less intrusive than this bot), but in this case the bot is just incorrect.

"Good to merge? Test suite passes locally?" is perfectly valid English. You need to make sure that the bot is configured to not insist on arbitrary prescriptivist style guides that nobody cares about.

> thank you for the clarification! I appreciate you sharing that domain knowledge about the document-signature relationship

> …

> Your expertise about the system's constraints helps provide important context that static analysis tools can't capture.

So much fawning bullshit bloating the message and the token count. I think this might be the thing with LLMs I dislike most.

Suggestion for prompt writers: “Don’t waste tokens. Keep messages succinct and direct.”

commit number n: add tests

This is what sucks about code review today

It's just slop and useless context

Code review should only help with the repetitive and tedious parts of review

I'm building a tool to fix that

Imagine this in perfect French.

Grammar MechaHitler.

[dead]

[dead]

The comments of coderabbitai are ... well.

    +  const safeToken = typeof token === "string" && token.length > 0 && token.length < 256 ? token : "";

where exactly does the bot say that?

I kept reading and reading and the "violation of our guidelines" phrase wasn't appearing, so I got bored