docs: Disclosure of AI agents with respect to development process

Đang mở
  • Có gì không ổn?
#584 1 bình luận 2 reaction 0 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

Maintainer thường phản hồi trong vòng 1 ngày

Chưa có ai nhận issue này.

Đánh giá

Độ khó
5/5
Thời gian dự kiến
Hơn một tuần
Mức phù hợp với người mới
30/100
Loại issue
Tài liệu
Độ rõ ràng
Cần làm rõ
Mức độ hoạt động
Ít trao đổi
Công nghệ
github
Lĩnh vực
documentation

Hướng nghiên cứu

Issue không nêu tệp tài liệu hay bài kiểm thử nào; hãy bắt đầu bằng cách xem xét nội dung công khai được yêu cầu cùng với PR #532 và hướng dẫn hiện có của repository dành cho contributor. Công việc được xem là hoàn tất khi dự án có một tuyên bố rõ ràng, dễ thấy, giải thích khi nào AI agents hoặc hoạt động tự động tham gia vào việc tương tác trong issue và pull request.

Do mô hình lập chỉ mục viết ra từ nội dung của issue.

Mô tả

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.

Ngôn ngữ chính
Python
Star
1k
Fork
176
Merge trung bình
1 ngày 11 giờ
Pull request đã merge (30 ngày)
87

Chuẩn bị môi trường

Bắt đầu từ đâu

  1. Đọc hết issue, rồi đọc hướng dẫn đóng góp của dự án.
  2. Bình luận trên issue rằng bạn sẽ nhận — tránh hai người làm cùng một việc.
  3. Fork repository và làm thay đổi trên một nhánh.
  4. Mở pull request có tham chiếu số hiệu của issue.

Issue khác của Comfy-Org/comfy-cli

Tất cả issue của Comfy-Org/comfy-cli

Issue tương tự

Thêm issue về Python

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

Bản tóm tắt ngắn những issue GitHub phù hợp với người mới.