The GNOME.org Extensions hosting for GNOME Shell extensions will no longer accept new contributions with AI-generated code. A new rule has been added to their review guidelines to forbid AI-generated code.

Due to the growing number of GNOME Shell extensions looking to appear on extensions.gnome.org that were generated using AI, it’s now prohibited. The new rule in their guidelines note that AI-generated code will be explicitly rejected

  • Quatlicopatlix@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Have you read the first paragraph if the lidnked articel? It quotes the criteria right there: "Extensions must not be AI-generated

    While it is not prohibited to use AI as a learning aid or a development tool (i.e. code completions), extension developers should be able to justify and explain the code they submit, within reason.

    Submissions with large amounts of unnecessary code, inconsistent code style, imaginary API usage, comments serving as LLM prompts, or other indications of AI-generated output will be rejected."

    Maybe instead of commenting under every comment that lines this change read the articlw first? Ai is fine if your code is fine and you uderstand it. If the reviewer has to argue with a llm because the submitter just pasts the text into his llm and then posts the output of said llm back to the reviwer it is a huge waste of time. Thiss doesnt happen if the person submitting the code understands it and made shure that the code is fine.

    • logging_strict@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Everyone commenting have read and understood the article. Perhaps the nuance of the conversation is just going over your head. Your commentary is your personal opinion, which is outside of the source material. What you copy+pasted is exactly what we’ve commented on.

      The article never said “reviewing Gnome extensions, where LLM was used, is a huge waste of time”. You are adding to what’s said. The adults are not pulling from outside the article.

      We are stating what the article lacks. We are not hallucinating. So if we are not hallucinating then you must not be following. Reread it a few times until you get it.

      • Quatlicopatlix@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 minutes ago

        Maybe read the original blog post from the gnome dev then? The post the article references… it says right there why the ai code is a problem, it has to much unnessecery code in it and reviewing that takes time. The author also says the submitted ai code doesnt adhere to good practices.