No idea how it works where you are but in Belgium and in the EU we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_services_by_country is available in most places. Anyway I can tell you when companies receive an email from them, they don’t mess around. I’ve been waiting for a bike part for a year. I contacted the ombudsman, no cost, just 2 emails, suddenly my carbon belt was shipping the very next day.
I agree with everything you wrote but I’m not sure how it helps clarify what I said earlier. So… I think we agree?
On your final point I think the big difference between then (before LLMs) and now is that until recently a very demanding PR, in the sense that the person asking for the merge would have a good idea yet didn’t really get something about the project and thus needed a lot of guidance, it was seen as an investment. It was a risky bet, maybe that person would just leave after a lengthy discussion, maybe they’d move to their own project, etc… but a bit like with a young intern, the person from the project managing that PR was betting that it was worth spending time on it. They were maybe hoping to get some code they themselves didn’t have the expertise on (say some very specific optimization for very specific hardware they didn’t have) or that this new person would one day soon become a more involved contributor. So there was an understanding that yes it would be a challenging process but both parties would benefit from it.
Now I believe the situation has changed. The code submitted might actually be good, maybe not. It will though always, on the surface, look plausible because that’s exactly what LLM have been trained for, for code or otherwise, to “look” realistic in their context.
So… I would argue that it’s this dynamic that has change, from the hope of onboarding a new person on a project to a 1-shot gamble.
Using a 2nd hand Pixel 8 I got for 180 EUR running GrapheneOS, daily driving it since I received it.
IMHO what it shows isn’t what the author tries to show, namely that there is an overwhelming swarm of bits, but rather that those bots are just not good enough even for a bot enthusiast. They are literally making money from that “all-in-one AI workspace. Chat - MCP - Gateway” and yet they want to “let me prioritize PRs raised by humans” … but why? Why do that in the first place? If bots/LLMs/agents/GenAI genuinely worked they would not care if it was made or not by humans, it would just be quality submission to share.
Also IMHO this is showing another problem that most AI enthusiasts are into : not having a proper API.
This repository is actually NOT a code repository. It’s a collaborative list. It’s not code for software. It’s basically a spreadsheet one can read and, after review, append on. They are hijacking Github because it’s popular but this is NOT a normal use case.
So… yes it’s quite interesting to know but IMHO it shows more shortcomings rather than what the title claims.
So ombudsman can be for “petty” things, like the belt of my e-bike, but also for much more “serious” things like political corruption, vote scams, etc where I imagine Congress might be correct. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsmen_in_the_United_States clarifies though there are ombudsmen dedicated to agencies but also state level or even city and county level. So I imagine the more precise you are picking the right one, the more likely it’s going to be treated, efficiently or at all.