this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
77 points (97.5% liked)
Programming
26072 readers
80 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Surely we can come up with networks of trust for this sort of thing, so that you don't have to deal with PRs from people with no references.
Everyone starts off without references, and there's already less of a pipeline from user to helpful contributor to fellow maintainer than most projects want without having to add more chokepoints. There isn't a solution without downsides while there are people using LLMs.
That's true, but as a maintainer you could encourage those helpful maintainers to triage issues from regular users.
I think the real benefit would come from taking a user's reputation into account across projects.
At the end of the day you can't have low effort pull requests, and expect maintainers to look at everything. It's the same spam problem as in any other domain.
This works if you have the luxury to select the people whose PRs you review, but in a corporate environment you just don't have that option. I would love to just reject obvious LLM code, but it's not going to keep me employed. Instead I'm stuck at figuring out how to meaningfully review LLM changes and how to manage the mental model with these rapid changes.