From 8180edbfc0413d7cd64fd38d08799a935d707529 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Leah Wasser Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 12:24:50 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 1/6] docs(blog): when the human disappears --- ...08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md | 107 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md 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..e07ba818 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +--- +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 +# Add names after review. One name, or a list. +reviewed_by: [] +blog_topic: community +toc: true +comments: true +url: "/blog/when-the-human-disappears-europython.html" +lastmod: '2026-10-28' +highlight_image: + src: images/events/europython-sprint-2026.png + alt: Three people at EuroPython 2026 gather around a laptop. One stands and points at the screen while two sit and look on. +--- + +{{< figure src="images/events/europython-sprint-2026.png" alt="Three people at EuroPython 2026 gather around a laptop. One stands and points at the screen while two sit and look on." caption="Contributors working together at the EuroPython 2026 sprint." >}} + +At EuroPython 2026, I 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. + +I expected to hear about the time it takes to review AI-assisted code. Instead, the conversation kept returning to something else: the loss of, and uncertainty about, 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 post covers how AI tools are affecting the human experience of open source. A follow-up post will cover adoption and the motivations behind it. This pilot was larger and more open-format than the small groups we plan for our [research on how AI tools are changing scientific open source](/blog/ai-tools-research-sloan-funding.html). + +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, including myself. + +AI-assisted contributions are eroding these personal, fulfilling interactions. 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 have been on one end of an exchange like this. + +### False empowerment + +A contributor working with an AI tool or agent can feel fully self-sufficient and never realize they need to talk to 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. + +I also wonder whether visibility plays a role here. People doing core project work may not be seen by contributors the way they once were. + +### Shifting motivations + +Maintainers see contributors chasing resume lines or trying to get past automated hiring filters. Some employers also encourage open source contributions as a way to demonstrate technical skill. Some maintainers call the extreme version "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 seen this at pyOpenSci. 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. We also recently had to ban an account on the all-contributors bot, which I maintain, 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 to days. + +## 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. + +Assuming AI use is the problem can misjudge a newcomer who wants to get involved. Rejecting their work outright as "slop" doesn't help them. They may simply need guidance on using AI tools thoughtfully. That is a chance to connect and help a well-intentioned contributor build real skills. + +There is a real tension here. 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 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 preferred flexible guidelines to strict rules and policies. Approaches included: + +* Open an issue before opening a pull request, so a human conversation happens before any contribution. Connect first. +* 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. The maintainer had spent years lowering barriers to contribution and is now working to raise them. Protecting maintainers and welcoming newcomers pull in opposite directions. + +Participants also noted that contributions aren't only code. Outreach, documentation, and community work count, and they are harder to measure. + +## What we're 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 start: to see the human on the other side. + +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. From ed7853a78a7b35f96ab9ec3942892a78d3baa165 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Leah Wasser Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:13:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/6] Apply batched suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Carol Willing Co-authored-by: Leah Wasser --- .../2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) 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 index e07ba818..dc42b516 100644 --- a/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md +++ b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md @@ -23,15 +23,15 @@ highlight_image: alt: Three people at EuroPython 2026 gather around a laptop. One stands and points at the screen while two sit and look on. --- -{{< figure src="images/events/europython-sprint-2026.png" alt="Three people at EuroPython 2026 gather around a laptop. One stands and points at the screen while two sit and look on." caption="Contributors working together at the EuroPython 2026 sprint." >}} +{{< figure src="images/events/europython-sprint-2026.png" alt="Three people at EuroPython 2026 gather around a laptop. One 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, I 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. -I expected to hear about the time it takes to review AI-assisted code. Instead, the conversation kept returning to something else: the loss of, and uncertainty about, human connection. +I 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 and the uncertainty around it. 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 post covers how AI tools are affecting the human experience of open source. A follow-up post will cover adoption and the motivations behind it. This pilot was larger and more open-format than the small groups we plan for our [research on how AI tools are changing scientific open source](/blog/ai-tools-research-sloan-funding.html). +This post covers how AI tools are affecting the human experience of open source. A follow-up post will cover adoption and the motivations behind it. This pilot included a larger group and was more open-format than the small groups we plan for our [research on how AI tools are changing scientific open source](/blog/ai-tools-research-sloan-funding.html). All contributions to the discussion are anonymous. @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ I also wonder whether visibility plays a role here. People doing core project wo ### Shifting motivations -Maintainers see contributors chasing resume lines or trying to get past automated hiring filters. Some employers also encourage open source contributions as a way to demonstrate technical skill. Some maintainers call the extreme version "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. +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. Some maintainers call the extreme version "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. @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ Beyond the focus group, we have seen this at pyOpenSci. We have heard stories of 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. -Assuming AI use is the problem can misjudge a newcomer who wants to get involved. Rejecting their work outright as "slop" doesn't help them. They may simply need guidance on using AI tools thoughtfully. That is a chance to connect and help a well-intentioned contributor build real skills. +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 here. 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. From 7a820f5c88530fdfd6fb0b4923bbe80fa32bf0ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Leah Wasser Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:16:43 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] Apply suggestion from @lwasser --- content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) 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 index dc42b516..fecb04a7 100644 --- a/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md +++ b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ All contributions to the discussion are anonymous. > 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, including myself. +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, including myself. 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. 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. From dab659a5488bcba5baeeb302889ae1970c520cf5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Leah Wasser Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:17:48 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 4/6] Apply suggestion from @lwasser --- content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) 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 index fecb04a7..ddbacf2a 100644 --- a/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md +++ b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Participants agreed on one point: banning AI tool use altogether is the wrong ap The maintainers in our group preferred flexible guidelines to strict rules and policies. Approaches included: -* Open an issue before opening a pull request, so a human conversation happens before any contribution. Connect first. +* Open an issue before opening a pull request, so a human conversation happens before any contribution. As a human, connect first with other humans. * 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. From 96822fd7a9c2174dbfc3abcb42f457f00cf6bd23 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Leah Wasser Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:27:40 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 5/6] Capitalize title for blog post on AI contributions --- content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) 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 index ddbacf2a..71cb1eaa 100644 --- a/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md +++ b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ --- -title: 'When the human disappears: what maintainers told us about AI contributions at EuroPython' +title: 'When the Human Disappears: What Maintainers Told Us About AI Contributions at EuroPython' date: '2026-12-08' type: blog excerpt: > From 5f36effa252089f4d69d5941610cb1395622b429 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Leah Wasser Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2026 09:55:01 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] docs(blog): copy edits from Erika --- ...08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md | 185 ++++++++++++++---- ...europython-euroscipy-development-sprint.md | 2 +- ...pe-moreno-leading-sprint-pyconus-2026.png} | Bin 3 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) rename static/images/events/{europython-sprint-2026.png => Felipe-moreno-leading-sprint-pyconus-2026.png} (100%) 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 index 71cb1eaa..2c2b0c29 100644 --- a/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md +++ b/content/blog/2026-12-08-when-the-human-disappears-europython.md @@ -11,43 +11,73 @@ description: > how AI tools are changing open source. The conversation kept returning to the loss of human connection. author: Leah Wasser -# Add names after review. One name, or a list. -reviewed_by: [] +reviewed_by: ["Carol Willing"] blog_topic: community toc: true comments: true url: "/blog/when-the-human-disappears-europython.html" -lastmod: '2026-10-28' +lastmod: '2026-11-03' highlight_image: - src: images/events/europython-sprint-2026.png - alt: Three people at EuroPython 2026 gather around a laptop. One stands and points at the screen while two sit and look on. + 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/europython-sprint-2026.png" alt="Three people at EuroPython 2026 gather around a laptop. One 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." >}} +{{< 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, I 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. +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. -I 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 and the uncertainty around it. +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. +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 post covers how AI tools are affecting the human experience of open source. A follow-up post will cover adoption and the motivations behind it. This pilot included a larger group and was more open-format than the small groups we plan for our [research on how AI tools are changing scientific open source](/blog/ai-tools-research-sloan-funding.html). - -All contributions to the discussion are anonymous. +*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, including myself. 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. 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. +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. +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. +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." > @@ -55,53 +85,122 @@ One maintainer shared a story about suspecting a contributor was an agent. When > > "Oops." -No one in our session had a solution, but many of us have been on one end of an exchange like this. +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 talk to 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. +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. -I also wonder whether visibility plays a role here. People doing core project work may not be seen by contributors the way they once were. +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. Some maintainers call the extreme version "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 seen this at pyOpenSci. 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. We also recently had to ban an account on the all-contributors bot, which I maintain, 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 to days. +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 here. 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. +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 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. +**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 preferred flexible guidelines to strict rules and policies. Approaches included: +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. The maintainer had spent years lowering barriers to contribution and is now working to raise them. Protecting maintainers and welcoming newcomers pull in opposite directions. - -Participants also noted that contributions aren't only code. Outreach, documentation, and community work count, and they are harder to measure. - -## What we're taking forward +* 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? +* 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. -Behind each of these is the need we heard at the start: 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. +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