diff --git a/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2c2b0c29 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@ +--- +title: 'When the Human Disappears: What Maintainers Told Us About AI Contributions at EuroPython' +date: '2026-12-08' +type: blog +excerpt: > + At EuroPython 2026, fifteen maintainers talked for more than two hours about + how AI tools are changing open source. The conversation kept returning to + the loss of human connection. +description: > + At EuroPython 2026, fifteen maintainers talked for more than two hours about + how AI tools are changing open source. The conversation kept returning to + the loss of human connection. +author: Leah Wasser +reviewed_by: ["Carol Willing"] +blog_topic: community +toc: true +comments: true +url: "/blog/when-the-human-disappears-europython.html" +lastmod: '2026-11-03' +highlight_image: + src: images/events/Felipe-moreno-leading-sprint-pyconus-2026.png + alt: Three people at PyCon US 2026 gather around a laptop, including Advisory Council member Felipe Moreno. Felipe stands and points at the screen while two sit and look on. +--- + +{{< figure src="images/events/Felipe-moreno-leading-sprint-pyconus-2026.png" alt="Three people at PyCon US 2026 gather around a laptop, including Advisory Council member Felipe Moreno. Felipe stands and points at the screen while two sit and look on." caption="Contributors working with pyOpenSci Advisory Council Member, Felipe Moreno, at our PyCon US 2026 sprint." >}} + +At EuroPython 2026, the largest Python conference in Europe, pyOpenSci +facilitated a pilot focus group on how AI tools are changing open source +work. Fifteen maintainers from core scientific Python and Linux projects +joined a discussion that ran more than two hours. The maintainers in this +group steward core open source projects that many researchers depend on. +Their experiences with how contributors and others are using AI tools are +critical to understanding both the benefits and the strains AI tools bring to +open source projects. + +We expected to hear about the time it takes to review AI-assisted code. +Instead, the conversation kept returning to something else: **the loss of +human connection.** + +The group covered the full range of AI tool use. Some refuse to use the +tools and, in some cases, have left tech because of the strain. Others have +fully embraced them, including people in start-up environments where +adoption feels like the "only option" to keep up. + +*This pilot focus group was larger and more open-format than the small groups +planned for our [research on how AI tools are changing scientific open +source](/blog/ai-tools-research-sloan-funding.html). This post covers the +human side. All contributions to the discussion are anonymous.* + +## The loss is relational + +> We need to see the human on the other side. + +Maintainers described real joy in helping and mentoring contributors. Someone +finds a bug and files a fix. The maintainer helps that contributor get it +merged and, along the way, mentors them and builds their open source skills. +That interaction fuels many maintainers. It's also important to remember that +contributors have traditionally been users of a project and so they also +influence the direction that the project takes. This dynamic changes +drastically when you have agentic GitHub users making batch contributions to +projects simply to gain "credit." + +AI-assisted contributions are eroding these personal, fulfilling +interactions. That leads to drain and burnout in the expert community. When +maintainers lose the part of the work that sustains them, fewer stay, newcomers +lose mentors, and the open source ecosystem that researchers depend on grows +weaker. We heard similar concerns at our [PyCon US roundtable on AI +tools](/blog/pycon-us-2026-generative-ai-open-source.html). At EuroPython, +three patterns came up repeatedly. + +### Not knowing who is on the other end + +The tension runs in two directions. Sometimes a maintainer really is talking +to an agent or bot. Other times, it is a legitimate human. + +One maintainer shared a story about suspecting a contributor was an agent. +When they pressed further, the contributor turned out to be a person. The +strain lands on both sides: the maintainer can't tell who they are talking to, +and the contributor, who was just trying to help, is suspected of being +deceptive. + +> "Hey, this looks like AI wrote this." +> +> "Um, I wrote this last night." +> +> "Oops." + +No one in our session had a solution, but many of us experience this new and +confusing exchange. + +### False empowerment + +A contributor working with an AI tool or agent can feel fully self-sufficient +and never realize they need to engage with the maintainer. They keep making +contributions, sometimes large ones, without pausing to connect with the +humans maintaining the project. Meanwhile, the maintainer, who wants to +engage with a human, is trying to reach someone who isn't listening. + +We also wonder whether visibility plays a role here. People doing core project +work may not be seen by contributors the way they once were. Contributors used +to see maintainers answering issues, reviewing code, and shaping the project. +Now maintainers can fade into the background, and contributors may reach for a +tool before they think to reach out to a person. The new norm risks treating +maintainers as infrastructure instead of people that contributors engage with +carefully and considerately. + +### Shifting motivations + +Maintainers see contributors who are chasing resume bullet points or trying to +get past automated hiring filters. Some employers also encourage open-source +contributions to demonstrate technical skill. The extreme version of this +behavior is called "karma farming": opening many pull requests on +high-profile projects to build up a GitHub profile. This isn't new, but it now +makes up a much larger share of incoming work. + +Credit is part of this too. One maintainer redid minor bot-generated fixes +themselves rather than merge them, to avoid crediting an agent. Small, +externally driven agent pull requests can generate more work for maintainers, +and it remains unclear who deserves credit. + +Beyond the focus group, we have heard stories of people setting up agentic +accounts that first build karma and trust through valid contributions, then +are deployed autonomously in harmful ways. I saw a version of this on the +[all-contributors bot](https://github.com/all-contributors/app), which I +maintain. I recently banned an account that was clearly an agent. It commented +frivolously on issues and pull requests in an attempt to "review" them, and it +submitted dozens of pull requests for issues that hadn't yet been triaged for +viability. All of this happened within hours. Building that kind of standing +normally takes weeks to months. + +## Don't just call it AI slop + +It is easy to dismiss a low-quality pull request as "AI slop." Some +participants pushed back on that label. One maintainer said the real question +is whether the contributor is willing to invest their energy in engaging with +the project. + +If maintainers assume AI was used, they create a problem by misjudging a +newcomer who wants to get involved. Rejecting their work outright as "slop" +doesn't help either party. The contributor may simply need guidance on using +AI tools thoughtfully. The maintainer can miss the chance to connect and help +a well-intentioned contributor build real skills. + +**There is a real tension at this crossroad.** Many AI-fueled contributions +strain maintainers, and that strain can understandably leave them shorter and +less patient with new contributors. It is hard to know where to invest limited +time, and whether the person on the other end is a human who cares about the +process and learning, or an agent building credibility. But dismissing +contributions too quickly risks turning away someone who genuinely wants to +help. + +## What projects are trying + +**Participants unanimously agreed on one point: banning AI tool use altogether +is the wrong approach.** A ban doesn't stop people from using these tools. It +pushes that use out of sight, and contributors become less likely to disclose +it. That makes the community less open, honest, and secure. + +The maintainers in our group prefer flexible guidelines to strict rules and +policies. Approaches include: + +<<<<<<< HEAD +* Open an issue before opening a pull request, so a human conversation happens before any contribution. As a human, connect first with other humans. +======= +* Open an issue before opening a pull request, so a human conversation + happens before any contribution. Connect first with other humans. +>>>>>>> faea5734 (docs(blog): copy edits from Erika) +* Disclose AI use, including when the output hasn't been fully reviewed. +* Hold quality constant. The standard is the same whether or not a tool was + used. If an AI-assisted contribution is high quality, maintainers accept it. + Licensing is a separate consideration that came up only briefly in this + conversation. +* Verify a human who cares about the project. One maintainer described asking + contributors to attend a meeting to show they are a human who cares about the + project. Talking to someone in real time is one of the few remaining ways to + build accountability. + +That last approach has a cost. Maintainers have spent years lowering barriers +to contribution and are now forced to raise new checkpoints in order to +validate inputs. Protecting maintainers and welcoming newcomers pull in +opposite directions. + +Participants also noted that contributions aren't only code. Outreach, +documentation, and community work are meaningful, and they are harder to +measure. + +## What pyOpenSci is taking forward + +This pilot gave us questions to test at scale: + +* How common is it to not know whether a human is on the other end? +* Do contributors and maintainers see the same interaction differently? +* Which policy approaches reduce strain and which just move it? + +Behind each of these is the need we heard at the beginning: to see the human +on the other side. + +If we drain the ecosystem of its maintainers, newcomers lose their mentors +and the software science depends on gets harder to sustain. Working toward a +resolution now protects both the people and the research that relies on them. + +If you maintain or contribute to open source, [sign up for the survey and +upcoming focus groups](https://forms.gle/yTNXwQWQC4dLvErB7). That signup is +part of the [Sloan-funded research](/blog/ai-tools-research-sloan-funding.html) +this pilot belongs to. Our next post covers why people adopt these tools and +where their views split. diff --git a/content/events/2026-07-18-europython-euroscipy-development-sprint.md b/content/events/2026-07-18-europython-euroscipy-development-sprint.md index bfad9aa2..7cb1a320 100644 --- a/content/events/2026-07-18-europython-euroscipy-development-sprint.md +++ b/content/events/2026-07-18-europython-euroscipy-development-sprint.md @@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ For Leah Wasser's keynote and other pyOpenSci sessions during the conference week, see [pyOpenSci at EuroPython 2026](/events/2026-07-13-europython/).
- Three contributors collaborating around laptops at a pyOpenSci development sprint
diff --git a/static/images/events/europython-sprint-2026.png b/static/images/events/Felipe-moreno-leading-sprint-pyconus-2026.png similarity index 100% rename from static/images/events/europython-sprint-2026.png rename to static/images/events/Felipe-moreno-leading-sprint-pyconus-2026.png