Don't want to be too judgemental but does "Self Serve invite link" feature really needs 50 commits, an army of bots, countless nitpicking and 140+ messages? We are not launching Apollo to the Moon here.
I don't know this particular project but seeing threads like this kill any motivation to contribute.
csmantle · 2h ago
Apollo won't ever make it to the Moon if the engineers were flooded with these bot replies XD
Hilift · 2h ago
These resume's aren't going to write themselves.
No comments yet
repeekad · 2h ago
Haha, wait until you hear how long and how many people it takes to change the text for a single button at a company like Google
saidinesh5 · 2h ago
Ngl .. the spectrum is really as wide as:
"We are a fast moving start up (even at 3-4 years old), we believe in moving fast and breaking things ... That's why we don't do code reviews or unit tests.. we just edit live running code and restart the server"
Vs
"This one line change needs 4 -5 commits to add feature flags,unit tests, integration tests - all to be reviewed by different teams and wait 1-2 months to be deployed properly to production"
mgraczyk · 2h ago
Probably one person one minute, unless it needs translation in which case potentially unbounded time
dvh · 1h ago
And now top nav breaks to second line on 63% on mobile devices and the submit button is now out of screen. I know these "how hard can it be?" type of changes
id00 · 2h ago
I worked for a big tech and may be I was lucky but code wise it was much more tame. You may need to get an army of people to sign off the feature but nobody was scrutinizing my code like that
motorest · 1h ago
> Haha, wait until you hear how long and how many people it takes to change the text for a single button at a company like Google
I feel this is a needlessly obtuse statement. I'll explain you why, as I've worked professionally with frontend development. From your comment it seems you don't have that type of context.
The text that is expected to feature in a UI element is a critical factor in cross cutting concerns such as product management and UX design, and it involves things like internationalization and accessibility support. This means that if you change a line of text, it needs to be translated to all supported languages, and the translation needs to meet usability and GUI requirements. This check needs to be done in each and every single locale supported.
I can give you a very concrete example. Once I was tasked with changing a single line of text in a button featured in a dialog. It turns out the french translation ended up being too long that forced line breaks. The UI framework didn't handled those line breaks well and reflowed the whole UI, causing a huge mess. This required new translation requests, but it turned out that the new translations were too vague and ambiguous. Product Managers got involved because the french translation resulted in poor user experience. Ultimately the whole dialog was redesigned.
But to you it's just a text on a single button, isn't it?
I feel you, at our workplace someone added some AI Code review thing and it slops the whole PR with useless sequence diagrams and poems (why would I want to read an AI slop poem?) and pages and pages of instructions on how to interact with it.
Our Slack channel is also completely slopped to the point it's mostly bot conversations constantly spamming about review reminders, pull request statuses, and other useless info you can just look up yourself if you need it.
The signal to noise ratio is to the point where I just ignore everything.
Aeolun · 1h ago
You should add a bot to summarize all the messages in those channels!
bschne · 2h ago
this picture is missing some ads, it's the logical next step
samrus · 2h ago
"Your PR is missing testing results. Now, with playright pro, enjoy agentic debugging analysis that coordinates with coding agents including claude code, cursor, copilot, and more! Only 19.99!"
StrLght · 2h ago
What an absolutely dystopian PR flow.
Shouldn't automation be somewhat useful? All these bot comments — do they really bring more value than they create distractions?
nicce · 2h ago
If you look the org, it might make more sense.
> Antiwork emerged from Gumroad's mission to automate repetitive tasks. In 2025, we're taking a bold step by open-sourcing our entire suite of tools that helped run and scale Gumroad. We believe in making powerful automation accessible to everyone.
viraptor · 2h ago
It looks like most of the coderabbit comments were genuinely addressed. Can't easily follow the Cursor ones - they definitely have some work to do on the right presentation / summary folding.
So yeah, it does look like they bring value for genuinely more reliable code.
rokkamokka · 2h ago
Wow what an obnoxious and extremely verbose PR flow. Bot overflow
r0ckarong · 12m ago
Like we needed more ways to stifle contribution to FOSS projects. Where is the GaaS (gatekeeping as a service) unicorn?
thomascountz · 2h ago
I often use the metaphor of LLMs as calculators.
Mathematicians use calculators, and so too do elementary school students, and grocery store clerks, and civil engineers. What each person needs from a calculator can be similar, but would you give a graphing calculator to the store clerk and expect them to be more "productive?"
Admittedly, my metaphor is leaky—and I also can't comment on the participants of the PR—but after reading the comments and the code itself, I'm getting a lot of "here’s a new calculator with a bunch of graphing functions, trigonometric menus, and poem generators—now go do the basic arithmetic you were already doing, but you work for the calculator now" vibes.
Said another way, it took me a lot more time and effort to understand what the bots were saying and if I agreed, than it did for me to formulate my own thoughts and questions.
Like the saying goes, "the best calculator is the one you have with you," and I'd much rather just use my own.
Your last link seems to show alot of PRs being rejected because screenshots and test results werent included. I do get your point about the grammar rule being enforced badly, but the link isnt a great example it
WesolyKubeczek · 2h ago
Such future is instrumental in helping me accept and embrace my own mortality.
spuz · 2h ago
This would be best implemented inline with the textbox of the comment form. If you want to give people feedback on their grammar then do it while they are actually writing - not after. Otherwise you just make an already hard to follow thread even more noisy.
picafrost · 2h ago
This makes me wonder if AI usage will end up part of job position listings, similar to remote days, if it is not already. How much AI agent will you be able to use/be subjected to? Are people looking for this already when job searching?
VoidWhisperer · 2h ago
Some companies are definitely already looking for it - I think as part of my job search, I've run into probably atleast 4 or 5 companies that, on top of having it as a qualification, ask specific questions on the job application about what AI tools you use and how they've made you more productive
OJFord · 2h ago
I'm by no means a super keen or heavy user, I've barely dabbled really, but if we were hiring at the moment I think I'd ask about it - it's suddenly a huge part of understanding how a person works and what they might be like to interact with. Up there with considering cover letter/email/CV writing style, and commit messages from any take-home or their public repos.
mykowebhn · 2h ago
I know there's something to be said for retaining git history when merging, but merging 50 commits is a great way to pollute your commit history.
Some of the commit descriptions: "fix", "fixes", "clean up".
> # Self-Serve Invite Link Feature — Fixes #348
This feature enables admins to generate an invite link for contractors
How is that self-service?
juliangmp · 2h ago
How are these bots still a thing?
Who actually wants then???
am17an · 2h ago
There's going to a wrapper around github PRs to summarize these issues, the mess they created in the first place. BTW this is the same guy which has famously stopped hiring engineers
amiga386 · 2h ago
Dear bot,
Fuck off.
Dear humans who advocated for installing the bot, let me use anodyne, US corporate bullshit language so you'll understand:
Your bot does not add value. Get rid of it, before it drives out all voluntary contributors.
PeterStuer · 2h ago
Imagine a contributor forgetting to rinse his message through an AI verbalizer. The horror!
Asraelite · 3h ago
In principle I don't see a problem with bots looking out for grammar mistakes and typos that could confuse readers (so long as it's less intrusive than this bot), but in this case the bot is just incorrect.
"Good to merge? Test suite passes locally?" is perfectly valid English. You need to make sure that the bot is configured to not insist on arbitrary prescriptivist style guides that nobody cares about.
samrus · 2h ago
The problem is these bots dont understand the concept of "goals" or "achieving something". So they cant judge for themselves when they are actually helping (like in correcting grammar where its so bad its hindering communications with other contributors) or being pedantic (like this) because they wont think to consider the difference unless wxplicitly told to do so
And NGI like a human would be given this task and consider the spirit of the law, the goal we want to acheive, and enforce it to reach that. The next token AI doesnt model that. It just predicts the next token, and understanding the spirit of the law does not seem to be in the emergent capabilities of that
Asraelite · 1h ago
I often see comments on Github issues where poor wording makes it difficult to understand what is actually meant. Things like "I reproduced the bug on Linux, then I tried Windows. I can't reproduce it now." Does that mean it's just not reproducible on Windows, or not reproducible at all anymore? Ambiguities like that are especially annoying when it's someone posting a solution to a problem. Sometimes it's because of grammatical errors, sometimes not.
I think LLMs are actually great for catching things like this, and you generally don't need some higher-level understanding about the goals involved to notice the ambiguity. My point wasn't that bots shouldn't be used like this, just that they need to be given the right instructions.
antonvs · 2h ago
Yeah, no-one wants Grammarly on pull requests.
samrus · 2h ago
Well the maintainers might. The both in (badly) enforcing guidelines they set out. So they might want to police grammar a little bit. And i could see their point if the grammar is so bad it hinders communication. Bit uncomfortably, it was also be a reasonable predictor of those spam PRs put in from people just trying to pad resumes.
But yeah the bot needs to loosen the boundary a bit there
whatevsmate · 2h ago
> thank you for the clarification! I appreciate you sharing that domain knowledge about the document-signature relationship
> …
> Your expertise about the system's constraints helps provide important context that static analysis tools can't capture.
So much fawning bullshit bloating the message and the token count. I think this might be the thing with LLMs I dislike most.
Suggestion for prompt writers: “Don’t waste tokens. Keep messages succinct and direct.”
You can type Ctrl-F to search for a phrase within a page.
tomhow · 2h ago
In their defence, the originally-submitted title was edited so it didn't match a string in the PR thread. I've modified it so it does, but that also required removing words from the end.
I don't know this particular project but seeing threads like this kill any motivation to contribute.
No comments yet
"We are a fast moving start up (even at 3-4 years old), we believe in moving fast and breaking things ... That's why we don't do code reviews or unit tests.. we just edit live running code and restart the server"
Vs
"This one line change needs 4 -5 commits to add feature flags,unit tests, integration tests - all to be reviewed by different teams and wait 1-2 months to be deployed properly to production"
I feel this is a needlessly obtuse statement. I'll explain you why, as I've worked professionally with frontend development. From your comment it seems you don't have that type of context.
The text that is expected to feature in a UI element is a critical factor in cross cutting concerns such as product management and UX design, and it involves things like internationalization and accessibility support. This means that if you change a line of text, it needs to be translated to all supported languages, and the translation needs to meet usability and GUI requirements. This check needs to be done in each and every single locale supported.
I can give you a very concrete example. Once I was tasked with changing a single line of text in a button featured in a dialog. It turns out the french translation ended up being too long that forced line breaks. The UI framework didn't handled those line breaks well and reflowed the whole UI, causing a huge mess. This required new translation requests, but it turned out that the new translations were too vague and ambiguous. Product Managers got involved because the french translation resulted in poor user experience. Ultimately the whole dialog was redesigned.
But to you it's just a text on a single button, isn't it?
https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/7lkgdk/video_game_hu...
Our Slack channel is also completely slopped to the point it's mostly bot conversations constantly spamming about review reminders, pull request statuses, and other useless info you can just look up yourself if you need it.
The signal to noise ratio is to the point where I just ignore everything.
Shouldn't automation be somewhat useful? All these bot comments — do they really bring more value than they create distractions?
> Antiwork emerged from Gumroad's mission to automate repetitive tasks. In 2025, we're taking a bold step by open-sourcing our entire suite of tools that helped run and scale Gumroad. We believe in making powerful automation accessible to everyone.
So yeah, it does look like they bring value for genuinely more reliable code.
Mathematicians use calculators, and so too do elementary school students, and grocery store clerks, and civil engineers. What each person needs from a calculator can be similar, but would you give a graphing calculator to the store clerk and expect them to be more "productive?"
Admittedly, my metaphor is leaky—and I also can't comment on the participants of the PR—but after reading the comments and the code itself, I'm getting a lot of "here’s a new calculator with a bunch of graphing functions, trigonometric menus, and poem generators—now go do the basic arithmetic you were already doing, but you work for the calculator now" vibes.
Said another way, it took me a lot more time and effort to understand what the bots were saying and if I agreed, than it did for me to formulate my own thoughts and questions.
Like the saying goes, "the best calculator is the one you have with you," and I'd much rather just use my own.
When
https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pull/427#issuecomment-30...
results in
https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pull/427#issuecomment-30...
More incredible examples where a LLM flags contributors' pull requests because their comments contain minor grammar errors:
https://github.com/antiwork/flexile/pulls?q="our+contributin...
Some of the commit descriptions: "fix", "fixes", "clean up".
How is that self-service?
Fuck off.
Dear humans who advocated for installing the bot, let me use anodyne, US corporate bullshit language so you'll understand:
Your bot does not add value. Get rid of it, before it drives out all voluntary contributors.
"Good to merge? Test suite passes locally?" is perfectly valid English. You need to make sure that the bot is configured to not insist on arbitrary prescriptivist style guides that nobody cares about.
And NGI like a human would be given this task and consider the spirit of the law, the goal we want to acheive, and enforce it to reach that. The next token AI doesnt model that. It just predicts the next token, and understanding the spirit of the law does not seem to be in the emergent capabilities of that
I think LLMs are actually great for catching things like this, and you generally don't need some higher-level understanding about the goals involved to notice the ambiguity. My point wasn't that bots shouldn't be used like this, just that they need to be given the right instructions.
But yeah the bot needs to loosen the boundary a bit there
> …
> Your expertise about the system's constraints helps provide important context that static analysis tools can't capture.
So much fawning bullshit bloating the message and the token count. I think this might be the thing with LLMs I dislike most.
Suggestion for prompt writers: “Don’t waste tokens. Keep messages succinct and direct.”
I kept reading and reading and the "violation of our guidelines" phrase wasn't appearing, so I got bored