docs: Disclosure of AI agents with respect to development process

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#584 1 commento 2 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
30/100
Tipo di issue
Documentazione
Chiarezza
Da chiarire
Stato di attività
Tranquilla
Stack tecnologico
github
Ambito
documentation

Direzione di ricerca

L’issue non indica alcun file di documentazione né alcun test; inizia esaminando la divulgazione richiesta insieme a PR #532 e alle indicazioni esistenti del repository rivolte ai contributor. Il lavoro è completato quando il progetto presenta una dichiarazione chiara e visibile che spiega quando AI agents o l’automazione partecipano alle interazioni relative a issue e pull request.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

documentation

TL;DR: Recent activity on this project by maintainers has left some ambiguity to their development process, and what users or contributors should expect when engaging with the comfy-cli repo. This should be documented with clear disclosure of how AI has been adopted into the process.

If the observations are correct, that maintainers are no longer directly engaging with issues and PRs via the Github browser interface, but instead abstracted via an API and delegating agents to act on their behalf through developer GH accounts, including acts such as posting comments and PR feedback/approval... transparency of this delegation should be clearly disclosed, as presently the ability to discern any form human interaction in the review process is looking questionable?

I appreciate the labels like agent-coded to provide context, but when AI tooling has been used to manage issues (closing them in bulk with commentary tailored to each message), and also in PR descriptions, discussion and feedback/approval... It is less obvious the prose in these cases is not authored by a human unless certain mannerisms/content is present to distinguish this.

Could the project please disclose this is part of the process used now? There's been an uptick in PR activity for example, but examples like this PR give a strong impression that even the reviewer involved is agentic or through some AI tool generating that comment content?

For users of the project, this concern may be a niche concern. For OSS the added transparency however would be appreciated as the accounts are assumed to belong to real humans while these interactions are either automated or managed via some higher-level interface/service, rather than from Github itself which is what is available to the public eye.

Traditionally engagement with issues/PRs from those with commit access on this project has stalled, and with the recent closing of issues (all actioned in the same minute), it's unclear if there's a real human that can be engaged with as notifications may not reach the account owner if a third-party service is managing issues and PRs via an API alone while AI agents submit and review PRs with whatever degree of oversight by said account owners.

An example of where this is problematic is that any user engaging with the comfy-cli repo is highly likely to do so via the GH web interface (especially for issues), and they're most likely to be doing so directly as a human rather than delegated via an automated task. When a maintainer responds (such as closing an issue for any given reason), attempting to engage with that maintainer may be unsuccessful, and in turn any actions suggested by the comment may result in similar automated actions taking place unintentionally. This is not ideal for the maintainers (whom may be unaware of the attempt to reach out), nor for the public image of the repo (and thus the organization itself).

I don't have an issue with the use of AI, but as a user I'd very much appreciate upfront disclosure when engagement will not only be ignored (for reasons I understand), but attempts to contribute not only becoming stale from lack of upstream engagement but by automation quietly dismissing efforts via accounts that will not respond when a follow-up query to their action is commented (an issue I've experienced personally several times over the past year by the Comfy-Org organization).

Without providing such transparency, these additional practices with AI tooling do accumulate across the various users engaging with the project that it can erode trust and leave a negative impression, which while ComfyUI has reached levels of success a good driver of that was via community and OSS... I would hope this request is fair and won't be dismissed.

Lingua principale
Python
Stelle
1k
Fork
176
Merge medio
1g 11h
PR unite (30g)
87

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di Comfy-Org/comfy-cli

Tutte le issue di Comfy-Org/comfy-cli

Issue simili

Altre issue su Python

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.