On 10/2/26 16:53, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I look at our issue tracker where we see AI assisted contributions
that run the whole range from "an human making intelligent use of
the tool to provide high-quality bug reports with good analysis"
through to "absolute slop dumped on us with no apparent human
thought or intervention". I don't really want to expand that
from our issue tracker to our code review and codebase, please.
One of the problems I have with the AI contribs in the bug tracker
is that the quality/accuracy is just about high enough that I am
not comfortable rejecting (closing) most of the bugs, as there's
usually some nugget of a real problem in there. At the same time
the quality is not high enough to make it pleasant to deal with
the issues, which is amplified by the volume of bugs.
I expect the same thing will happen with code. The patches will be
good enough, such that you'll have a really hard time to justify
rejecting them outright. They can even be as good as an initial
patch from a human. The difference is that when you point out all
the mistakes to the human, they'll remember most of it and not
make the same mistakes again in future contributions. For bots,
it is a potluck whether your feedback has any effect long time
on future contributions. So we'll end up suffering through the
review of the work regardless.
I agree it's a risk (I mentioned it in different words in my reply to
Peter). However, it is a risk and not a certainty. If it materializes,
we can (with data) change the policy again; this is what the
"experimental" part means, or meant.
In the meanwhile the agent instructions exists to minimize this and
other risks. And even before that, maintainers *can and should* say no
if, for whatever reason, they don't feel comfortable reviewing AI
contributions.
Paolo
