graceful...

> and especially for not mentioning that it's AI generated code

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146970#issuecommen...

irony really is dead

Only bothering to mention it in response to one of many review comments is nearly the same as not disclosing it.

We might know the word "disclose" very different then. I'm amenable to taking issue with them not disclosing it up front, but then their guidelines - if the person above is to be believed - don't require it, and they did disclose it a few days after opening it. It was also not them responding to an allegation or anything, they disclosed it completely on their own terms. And that was two months ago.

I find that latter part particularly relevant, considering the hoopla is about AI bros being lazy dogs who can't be bothered to put in the hard work before attempting to contribute. Irony being then that the person above just took an intentionally cut short citation to paint the person in a somehow even more negative light than they'd have otherwise appeared in, while simultaneously not even bothering to review the conduct they're proposing to police to confirm it actually matches their knowingly uncharitable conjecture. Two wrongs not making a right or whatever.

In the future I plan on disclosing the use of AI in the body of the original PR so it's clearer.

I searched the commit message and the page github showed. That seems reasonable due diligence on my part. In particular, demanding lots of effort on the part of people to compensate for AI spam is rather at the root of why this trend is damaging.

It should be clear that my objection is to the mix of coc + ai in the context of llvm, not to this specific instance where someone is acting within the rules llvm has written down.

Thanks for digging that out, it was hidden in github's folding of many messages