Yea, I validated the scores on the places I know first-hand. I also spent a lot of time exploring and looking for suspicious gaps like areas without schools (which led to discovering Jedeschule instead of relying on OSM alone).
Finally, I launched an adversarial AI review which created hypotheses based on "common knowledge" like the Schwarzwald being strong in nature, which resulted in a rather long validation script (https://github.com/Ivorforce/wohnortatlas/blob/main/scripts/...).
Unfortunately most of the data sources are Germany only. It would take a lot of research to find equivalents for the UK, as well as another round of fine tuning on the algorithms.
That being said, I would love to see it too. It's MIT so perhaps someone will fork it some day.
What exactly would you use the ranked list for? You can zoom into the map (which should make hover less finnicky), compare two places (on the "Vergleich" tab), and the top ~5 places currently in view are highlighted with a red dot. Maybe one of those already helps?
Yeah i saw the red highlighted cities and thats really useful, just when i'm zoomed out and try to quickly hover over each red point, the cursor is a "grab hand" so it's hard to tell if i point at the exact point (i often first see the lower ranked surrounding places until i wiggle it), i was wondering if i could see a list of all red marked points in the current view.
Right. Reviewers still have the advantage of being able to spot AI text because it's often overtly different.
I just meant to say that, if you prompt ai "what would a human be proud of having written this code" you'll get an answer. They're not categorically incapable of fabricating an "opinion", they're just trained not to express one by default.
I’m teasing a bit, yes your point is well made, you could just prompt around it. I think the bigger picture is there isn’t going to be some magical panacea that fixes this, we’ll just have to accept some sort of Swiss cheese model, like in the world of aviation safety. This “test” could be just be another layer in the stack.
"(It’s famously not well capable of sounding human)"
Rather than a binary, I prefer to measure the question of "how much text does it take to be reasonably sure that it's an AI?"
By that metric, it is getting better at a reasonable pace. People are also getting better at prompting their AIs to write in something other than the default LLM style. If you think you're good at picking up that style, you probably are. But it's a lot harder to pick up AIs when they're fed a style sample. You wrote in the default AI style, and yeah, most of us have twigged to that by the end of your couple of short sentences. But feed the AI a style sample and it can definitely make it two sentences without every one realizing it's AI.
I think you first need to make an assumption of good faith on the submitter’s part. Yes, someone actively hostile to a repo and trying to sneak in changes will be successful, they can just prompt around the challenge.
I think the bigger picture is there won’t be one catch-all solution and we’ll need to embrace the Swiss cheese model from the world of aviation safety, this is just a suggestion for one layer.
It raises the stakes though. Getting challenged for an AI slop PR isn’t great, but ok, try and redeem yourself. Getting caught trying to cheat that challenge, you might as well just close down your account, like what is the point of even spending tokens to do this? These slop PRs are just people trying to pad their GitHub profiles.
I mean, yeah, you can give it style guidelines, but if someone's goal is "mislead people into thinking a person wrote this" then they should really be reevaluating their values.
One of the early selling points of LLMs was their ability to mimic styles. I haven't heard about that for a while though. Wouldn't that at least obscure the classic tells, if not eliminate them? I think the reason most (obvious) AI output is obvious is because people don't bother to hide it.
It's funny how identifiable AI text is. I usually know within like 10 seconds of watching a youtube video if the script is AI generated and it's a huge turnoff.
Plus the video generation, you basically know from the thumbnail. (Why do so many AI generated videos have a weird unnecessary film grain?!)
This could easily be circumvented by having the AI generate an explanation of the chosen portion of code and have the human rewrite it in their own words. It is much easier, imo, to swap clauses and put synonyms in place of other words within existing writing then it is to synthesise new text.
> what if code contributions objectively improve something?
If the contribution is complex enough, it is no longer an 'objective improvement' but rather a judgement call, and in the process becomes copyrightable. This is where the trouble lies, and why this kind of AI involvement is banned.
If it is not, for example by being a one-line fix that literally cannot be performed differently, it's a different story. Then it can be merged, viewed either as a menial change (exempt by the ban) or by transfer of ownership (the reviewer becomes the effective author) because it is not copyrightable.
The Godot maintainers do review based on the quality of contributor's past contributions. Those becoming especially proficient can even become maintainers.
Allowing AI use by 'trusted contributors' has been suggested and discussed, but there were enough reasons against it and not enough established benefit.
> - Negative: Submitters just add stylistic markers to make their accounts and output seem human-generated. This is like syntactic sugar: the core content and the size of contributions stay the same, but the style gets quirkier.
From my experience reviewing, most contributors never read the policies, especially those making a "quick AI PR". I don't expect the new policy to change this much.
> Positive: Submitters actually provide to-the-point, no-bullshit commits and comments
> From my experience reviewing, most contributors never read the policies, especially those making a "quick AI PR". I don't expect the new policy to change this much.
True. At least with a policy about it, the project maintainers can unilaterally close such PRs without further internal or external discussion on any case-by-case basis.
Dingdingding, we have a winner. The main use of such a policy is to be able to just close those giant wall-of-text PRs and have something to point to when people start to scream it's not fair.
Why is a policy necessary. you were never entitled to have your pr merged in the first place? If pr wasn't reviewable pre AI I'd expect it to be closed or ignored too
The policy isn't necessary to close the PR. The policy just helps to shut down the ensuing discussion after closing the PR. It helps in quickly dealing with well-meaning onlookers asking for clarification when you block PRs from the account.
Before AI a large pull request was enough effort to make that you could assume good faith work on the part of everyone. Likely even if it is bad for architectural reasons it is solving an itch other users have and it is reasonable for them to want an explanation why you refused someone who made this much effort. And since the effort required meant it didn't happen often it wasn't a big deal to provide that.
These days large PRs are easy to create and so humans need to shut them down.
Whether or not someone is entitled to something has very little bearing on whether someone believes they are entitled to something (and are willing to waste everyone's time to make a stink about it). Having clear rules to point to, even after the fact, is surprisingly effective in mitigating that.
Or, put more bluntly, your belief in what people ought to feel entitled to has no bearing on what they do believe, and policy needs to address the latter, not the former.
Prior to AI making a PR involved considerable effort from a human. So the default position for many open source projects was that it deserved some level of attention for the effort. Even if many projects in practice would struggle to review every PR. But with AI tools this dynamic has shifted dramatically - many PRs have basically zero effort been put into it. Additionally there are many more of them, and often way bigger also.
But now with AI, this should be "easier" for some definition of easy. In the sense that in the past, this might have taken 15 minutes to write, now with AI, this can take 5 minutes to write by first getting AI to produce a summary and then using human judgement to make it better. So, it's a good idea now to actually demand the dream.
If people knew how to get AI to write terse, focused summaries, sure, that might help. I haven't seen many that do (well, ignoring the toupee fallacy).
Though the most important aspect is that we need to know the motivation and thought process, and all AI can do is fabricate a 'plausible' one.
Reading AI PRs reminds me of Monty Python's holy grenade:
"And the Lord spake, saying, ''First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'
I wouldn't mind reading that and having a good chuckle while processing an MR, as long as the comment had been crafted by a person. But now I think writing in grunts is gonna become the thing. "pete? you good boy? we won't hire you/ paper you gave HR girl with older gigs? remember it pete my boy? too many words/ words were too long/ dots you used dots/ you scratched long dash with knife, but baby saw scratch/we don't ai pete/ask if they have job in next cave/good luck."
I've found that the instructions "be extremely concise" gets me much closer to output that's actually sensible/helpful rather than another wall of text.
> From my experience reviewing, most contributors never read the policies, especially those making a "quick AI PR". I don't expect the new policy to change this much.
The policy allows the reviewer to reject it on the "AI" grounds.
Unfortunately, only a single PR like this comes to mind. Most AI authors we've seen were identifiable mainly by overly verbose PR descriptions, meaningless code changes and copy-pasting more AI output when questioned.
A contributor in good faith is going to accept criticism and resubmit an improved change: less files modified, more explanation, more focus, references to actual tickets and discussion with actual developers.
They could allow AI PRs, but then have another AI PR reviewer reject them if they do not match the definitions for `to-the-point` `no-bullshit` commits.
Please provide 3 examples where layering on MORE of the offending technology has solved the problem. Spam? Malware & Viruses? Customer Service? Hiring & Recruitment?
We just recently started that policy so we'll see how it goes. If anything, having it stated as policy lets us filter out these requests without spending brain tokens on them.
I've always instructed Claude to check the policies first, frankly I'm surprised it's not smart enough to do that already. Would be easy to add to a system prompt. But usually it doesn't matter because many projects have no policies, or maybe they exist but only in hidden forum posts issues or something.
The writer got it wrong. Godot never did accept fully AI-authored code contributions.
What's changed now is that Godot prohibits any substantial AI written code (though this was already mostly enacted before making it policy).
The past 10 years have been a sad, slow decline for Apple's UIs. I'm really hoping for them to reclaim some of their former UI glory.
At least, in Golden Gate, they reverted their own HIG violation of excessive icons back to factory: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/06/11/macos-27-golden-gate-me...
The time span and visible effect are both fully attributable to Alan Dye being head of design. It (what we have today) was his style. He made this world.
Finally, I launched an adversarial AI review which created hypotheses based on "common knowledge" like the Schwarzwald being strong in nature, which resulted in a rather long validation script (https://github.com/Ivorforce/wohnortatlas/blob/main/scripts/...).