Doesn’t look like goal-post moving to me. GP argued that AI isn’t making a difference, because if it was, we’d see amazing AI-generated open source projects. (Edit: taking a second look, that’s not exactly what GP said, but that’s what I took away from it. Obviously individuals create open source projects all the time.)

You rebutted by claiming 4% of open source contributions are AI generated.

GP countered (somewhat indirectly) by arguing that contributions don’t indicate quality, and thus wasn’t sufficient to qualify as “amazing AI-generated open source projects.”

Personally, I agree. The presence of AI contributions is not sufficient to demonstrate “amazing AI-generated open-source projects.” To demonstrate that, you’d need to point to specific projects that were largely generated by AI.

The only big AI-generated projects I’ve heard of are Steve Yegge’s GasTown and Beads, and by all accounts those are complete slop, to the point that Beads has a community dedicated to teaching people how to uninstall it. (Just hearsay. I haven’t looked into them myself.)

So at this point, I’d say the burden of proof is on you, as the original goalposts have not been met.

Edit: Or, at least, I don’t think 4% is enough to demonstrate the level of productivity GP was asking for.

> where are all the amazing open source programs

> amazing

Nobody moved the goal posts.

They didn’t, amazing open source was asked for, meaningless stats were given. Not that GitHub public repositories were amazing before AI, but nothing has changed since, except AI slop being a new category.

Even if this was goalpost moving, is it really an unreasonable ask to not have slop everywhere?

I deliberately asked for amazing open source projects. I’ve yet to see a single AI coded project i would use.

Keep licking those boots.