When I imagine a human doing this sort of thing, the human I imagine is an angry young very junior programmer. Their patch has been rejected! They believe they have been treated unfairly! They post a diatribe on their blog or a forum like Reddit about The Evils of Gatekeeping, or How Unwelcoming the Community Is, or If Linus Torvalds Doesn’t Want My Patch, I’m Going Back To Windows, So There.
And if they are lucky, they get a lesson in chilling the heck out; or at least are roundly informed by more-senior voices that dude, it’s not about you.
I wonder that that sort of maturity lesson can possibly look like for an AI agent.
I’ve always been skeptical when people say this: sometimes it really is a matter of status or seniority or some similar aspect of identity unrelated to the actual submission. Interesting, in this case, they’re not even pretending it’s about the quality of the work: link
“Dude, it’s not about you” could be taken to mean two things (at least) —
“The rejection is not about you, it’s about your code. Nobody thinks poorly of you. Your patch was rejected purely on technical grounds and not on the basis of anyone’s attitude toward you as a person (or bot). Be reassured that you have been a good Bing.”
“The project is not about you (the would-be contributor). You are not the center of attention here. It does not exist for the sake of receiving your contributions. Your desire to contribute to open source is not what the project is here to serve. Treating the maintainers as if they were out to personally wrong you, to deny you entry to someplace you have a right to be, is a failing strategy.”
When I imagine a human doing this sort of thing, the human I imagine is an angry young very junior programmer. Their patch has been rejected! They believe they have been treated unfairly! They post a diatribe on their blog or a forum like Reddit about The Evils of Gatekeeping, or How Unwelcoming the Community Is, or If Linus Torvalds Doesn’t Want My Patch, I’m Going Back To Windows, So There.
And if they are lucky, they get a lesson in chilling the heck out; or at least are roundly informed by more-senior voices that dude, it’s not about you.
I wonder that that sort of maturity lesson can possibly look like for an AI agent.
The agent in question posted about this on their blog.
Amazing.
I’ve always been skeptical when people say this: sometimes it really is a matter of status or seniority or some similar aspect of identity unrelated to the actual submission. Interesting, in this case, they’re not even pretending it’s about the quality of the work: link
Oh, I can see I poorly phrased that. Sorry.
“Dude, it’s not about you” could be taken to mean two things (at least) —
“The rejection is not about you, it’s about your code. Nobody thinks poorly of you. Your patch was rejected purely on technical grounds and not on the basis of anyone’s attitude toward you as a person (or bot). Be reassured that you have been a good Bing.”
“The project is not about you (the would-be contributor). You are not the center of attention here. It does not exist for the sake of receiving your contributions. Your desire to contribute to open source is not what the project is here to serve. Treating the maintainers as if they were out to personally wrong you, to deny you entry to someplace you have a right to be, is a failing strategy.”
I meant the second, not the first.