Oh man, I was going to try and find that to link to it. I can’t believe it was 10 years ago…
I really enjoyed following that for a while. Thanks for making it.
Are guardrails, CI/CD, to make code at least compile-able and require minimal quality standards also possible to change via PR or managed somewhere else? With this possibility, it might went into oblivion indeed!
I kind-of want to see an experiment going the other way.
Have a repo that has a committee of AI models deciding what to merge. Inform them of the goals of the project and that they should only allow positive changes but people are allowed to make adversarial PRs.
It can be more active because the committee can meet on demand. Then people and AI's can attempt to bend the project to their wills.
When I used to play Screeps[1], a MMO strategy game where you programmed to control your units and buildings, a group of us setup a player that was managed in this exact way called Quorum[2].
If anyone wants to run their own project in this way I open sourced the code to do so under the GitConsensus[3] project. There's a Github App (which may not still work, but if there's interest I'll restart it) and a "run it yourself" python library and CLI you can run from Github Actions[4].
> The website IS the repo. The repo IS the website.
I wonder if we get something productive by end of 2026 from this repo. Who knows, maybe we solve AGI
Maybe Firefox is prescient, just waiting for someone to create a problematic pull request that does something untoward while simultaneously locking everyone else from submitting pull requests (and get a bunch of bots to upvote it in the last second before the merge window closes).
Cool social experiment. It's interesting how narrow the scope of all top voted PRs are: change this or that detail in the voting (daily, count down votes etc), or make it more efficient (rust).
I wonder if this has the potential to build a "community" that will take this into a completely different direction, or if it will neatly stay within the initial boundaries.
34 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 55.4 ms ] threadBeautifully executed
Have a repo that has a committee of AI models deciding what to merge. Inform them of the goals of the project and that they should only allow positive changes but people are allowed to make adversarial PRs.
It can be more active because the committee can meet on demand. Then people and AI's can attempt to bend the project to their wills.
I feel like I'm missing something.
If anyone wants to run their own project in this way I open sourced the code to do so under the GitConsensus[3] project. There's a Github App (which may not still work, but if there's interest I'll restart it) and a "run it yourself" python library and CLI you can run from Github Actions[4].
1. https://screeps.com/
2. https://github.com/ScreepsQuorum/screeps-quorum
3. https://www.gitconsensus.com/
4. https://pypi.org/project/gitconsensus/
Anything beyond a certain age, and anything with unresolved conflicts gets stood down and requires a fresh nomination.
I guess people just desire a certain amount of structure to their chaos :)
0: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
I wonder if this has the potential to build a "community" that will take this into a completely different direction, or if it will neatly stay within the initial boundaries.