Godot Engine suffering from lots of "AI slop" code submissions

Ban AI-generated everything. Is it optimal? No, but practical and likely the only reasonable option if Godot wants to remain open to new contributors. These AI slop "contributions" aren't contributing to anything positive.

Quoting: dpanterBan AI-generated everything.

Amen

In theory AI should help for most of us, however in practice it helps just for few people (mainly from big corporations) in the world and is a problem for 95% population. At current situation whole AI is just a horrible waste of resources. I think that in near future we'll see a lot of changes and limitations at how AI is used, because current use cases are jokes.

Quoting: dpanterBan AI-generated everything. Is it optimal? No, but practical and likely the only reasonable option if Godot wants to remain open to new contributors. These AI slop "contributions" aren't contributing to anything positive.

I'm tempted to agree, but this is both impractical and would throw the small percentage of valid cases.

A better approach would to be require all PR to be hand-reviewed *before* submission, and vetted by a human. It's equally impractical, but if we look at the cURL project as an example, it is possible for competent devs to use LLM and similar as tools to raise appropriate issues, fixes, and formulate them properly. Key element is, a human used a tool vs. a tool used a human.

Back to e-mail workflow, auto-close GH PRs. Might as well switch to SourceHut while they're at it.

I can't stop you using LLM as a tool, but I still expect you to know what it is you're doing.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask people to understand what it is they are submitting, because they are asking me to maintain it going forward.

Personally I feel that LLM's as how they are pushed to have superficial value. I honestly feel that if it never happened the whole world would be in a better place and as a society we would be more productive.
Not that the tech is bad, just the politics of the tech.

I'm so glad that all these garbage llm's are eating up all the cpus and rams and hdds and etc so they can generate this super great stuff! YAY! I AM SO GLAD DID I MENTION THAT. SOOOOOO. GLAD.

😡

Quoting: Cley_Faye

Quoting: dpanterBan AI-generated everything. Is it optimal? No, but practical and likely the only reasonable option if Godot wants to remain open to new contributors. These AI slop "contributions" aren't contributing to anything positive.

I'm tempted to agree, but this is both impractical and would throw the small percentage of valid cases.

Ban is simple and simple things are practical.
So we need to rid or not put in place some systems, because it (may) hurts small percentage... I agree, first come to mind... vaccination... is both impractical and hurts percentages /s

using AI to fight AI which they said "seems horribly ironic" but they might have to eventually

A couple of years ago, I was on a cyber security panel which asked "what is the best use for AI, in your business". We were a panel of investment managers, and the top answer was "writing out responses to client due diligence questionnaires". The second-to-top answer was "reading responses from our own vendor due diligence questionnaires".

You couldn't make it up.

But no, fighting AI with more AI is a poor choice that simply feeds the beast (in this case, the beast being AI itself). A ban on AI is ideal... except it will become increasingly difficult to know when AI has been involved.

I wonder if it's possible that new PR requests (that is, PRs from new contributors) go into a queue, and a voting system is introduced among Github users. This wouldn't be the Godot team themselves, just interested parties. As more people vote on the "good" PRs, or at least the desirable PRs, they rise to the top, and only then get reviewed by the Godot team. Once they've contributed (well) once, they skip the queue for future PRs.

It's far from simple, but there's a crowd of interested parties out there, and it would be a shame not to give that crowd some agency on the prioritisation of new contributions.

one solution that i saw that WILL cause backslash... was to charge to submit an issue, and refund if the issue was legitimate.

that would limit how much the "ai bros" can flood the repo with bad submissions, and help pay the costs of reviewing the submissions

How matplotlib's attempt at moderating AI submissions went:
https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/

Oh brave new world, that has such LLMs in it!

Quoting: whizseHow matplotlib's attempt at moderating AI submissions went:
https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/

Oh brave new world, that has such LLMs in it!

I heard about this the other day, because Ars Technica then ran (and [removed](https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retraction-of-article-containing-fabricated-quotations/) ) an article, which used AI which entirely made up quotes about it all.

Last edited by Liam Dawe on 18 Feb 2026 at 2:42 pm UTC

Quoting: Cley_FayeA better approach would to be require all PR to be hand-reviewed *before* submission, and vetted by a human.

Sure.
Unfortunately not a feasible option in this dire situation.
Stemming the tide as soon as possible is imperative for Godots survival.

If you generated the whole thing with AI, what made you think the maintainers couldn't have done this themselves?

Quoting: Cley_Faye

Quoting: dpanterBan AI-generated everything. Is it optimal? No, but practical and likely the only reasonable option if Godot wants to remain open to new contributors. These AI slop "contributions" aren't contributing to anything positive.

I'm tempted to agree, but this is both impractical and would throw the small percentage of valid cases.

A better approach would to be require all PR to be hand-reviewed *before* submission, and vetted by a human. It's equally impractical, but if we look at the cURL project as an example, it is possible for competent devs to use LLM and similar as tools to raise appropriate issues, fixes, and formulate them properly. Key element is, a human used a tool vs. a tool used a human.

A small percentage of false positives is better than the several times of increased effort spent on reviewing.

Often the best rule is not so much "is it LLM-generated" but rather "does it look LLM-generated", because if you reviewed and cleaned-up your partially-LLM-generated submission well, it shouldn't at all be "obvious" that it was LLM-generated.

Last edited by coolitic on 18 Feb 2026 at 3:35 pm UTC

Quoting: dpanterBan AI-generated everything. Is it optimal? No, but practical and likely the only reasonable option if Godot wants to remain open to new contributors. These AI slop "contributions" aren't contributing to anything positive.

Your "solution" is naive at best, because you wrongly assume that people would care about such a ban any more than they care about speed limits. And in contrast to what you're probably assuming, it's often not very obvious that code was AI generated, particularly if some telltale signs are removed (e.g. overly verbose comments that LLMs love so much).

Also, legitimate developers use AI tools too, so you'd technically ban a lot of solid code contributions because their authors included a vibecoded function or two. Not sure if that's the intended effect, but hey.

Quoting: whizseHow matplotlib's attempt at moderating AI submissions went:
https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/

Oh brave new world, that has such LLMs in it!

Thank you for sharing, that was a hell of a read.

Quoting: Kimyrielleyou wrongly assume

I find your assumptions about my assumptions presumptuous.

Don't give me that "AI code can be good too" nonsense, that's not what is happening here. Legitimate developers wouldn't need to vibecode slop, nor PR untested/unknown code willy-nilly.

'Banning a lot of solid code contributions because their authors included a vibecoded function or two' sounds absolutely reasonable in this catastrophic AI slop onslaught on Godot.

Quoting: dpanter

Quoting: Kimyrielleyou wrongly assume

I find your assumptions about my assumptions presumptuous.

Don't give me that "AI code can be good too" nonsense, that's not what is happening here. Legitimate developers wouldn't need to vibecode slop, nor PR untested/unknown code willy-nilly.

'Banning a lot of solid code contributions because their authors included a vibecoded function or two' sounds absolutely reasonable in this catastrophic AI slop onslaught on Godot.

Well, if that's the best you can do to defend your knee-jerk "solution" to the problem, I am glad you don't have any say in the matter, so cooler heads than yours can look for one. *shrug*

Quoting: dpanter

Quoting: Kimyrielleyou wrongly assume

I find your assumptions about my assumptions presumptuous.

Don't give me that "AI code can be good too" nonsense, that's not what is happening here. Legitimate developers wouldn't need to vibecode slop, nor PR untested/unknown code willy-nilly.

'Banning a lot of solid code contributions because their authors included a vibecoded function or two' sounds absolutely reasonable in this catastrophic AI slop onslaught on Godot.

I haven't got the faintest idea how you would want to find out.