Hi This ultimately means they train AI on the contributors & maintainers. Either indirectly -- by extending high quality projects, or directly -- by observing how project maintainers react to these issues. Since the maintainers' time is a 'free resource' for them, it economically makes sense :(
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 19:35, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > FYI - I got some information where it originated from. Basically this is > one of a "crowdsource expert humans to train AI" platforms - where they pay > people for some AI tasks. > > Apparently they are running some campaign to "crowdsource" training the AI > by human experts to write better issues. They use "reputable" repositories > like Airflow and Iceberg with good and poor issues - and people they pay > are supposed to take existing issue reports and write "better versions of > those issues". > They provided some instructions and videos to the people on how to do it, > and that involved actually showing how to create an issue in Airflow repo > using our templates (which were considered high quality) explaining what is > important to add and fill, explaining that labels are important etc. etc. > (apparently they did not realize that contributors cannot add labels and > that the labels are added by DoSu). > The instructions were tricking people into actually creating issues in > real Airflow repo. > > The assumption they have is that crowdsourced humans can take such "poorly > written issues" and "rewrite them in a better way" to train AI to help to > write better issues - this has some AI assistance to generate initial > content from such "poorly written issues" - as far as I understand. > > I am quite sure people from that platform are listening in - they seem to > react and stop the people from doing what they were doing (or so it seems). > So I hope they will not make that mistake again - and that they will be > more careful. Or else ... > > Sharing publicly the name of that platform would be rather painful for > them - so I am not going to do that publicly - but feel free to reach out > to me personally if you know me - I will gladly share it. > > Taking into account what effect this could have on maintainers, also I > think - judging by the quality of the issues we had - the assumption they > had is completely wrong. Any of their customers who run their campaign > would likely be pretty discouraged to continue working with them knowing > the quality of data they got in. > > After understanding better how people are currently attempting to train AI > for such tasks, I am quite certain we have nothing to be afraid of - AI is > not going to replace us :). I am only afraid that we will have to learn how > to deal with the huge amount of "AI slop" that we are going to get. But I > am already suggesting to some of the friends working with AI that having > OSS-friendly AI services to filter out such "AI slop" is a very good > business to have. > > J. > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 9:20 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> Just as a little follow up - I think I have a hypothesis about what >> happened. >> >> We got one other user creating one issue which was very similar and from >> this comment I gather: >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45940#issuecomment-2608307111 >> >> * there is some tool out there that is supposed to make "issue creation" >> easier - with help of AI >> * some test accounts were used to test it (likely there are people who >> have a bunch of fake Github accounts they maintain to test new things with >> AI) >> * apparently some "real" people also got their hands on that tool and >> tried it >> * this tool LIKELY used "airflow" and "iceberg" in some documentation or >> default settings as "examples" >> * apparently this tool mislead people into thinking they are "testing" >> issue creation where it actually created those issues >> * I guess whoever has the tool realised their mistake and either stopped >> it or removed some confusion >> * I have my own suspicions (which I am exploring) - but I asked the user >> to provide information about what tooling they were using (and the user was >> apologising, and expressed willingness to provide more information so I >> hope I will get more information soon). >> >> J. >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 8:57 AM Piotr Findeisen < >> piotr.findei...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> Thank you Jarek for taking care of this matter! >>> >>> > Should we react and block new users from interacting with Airflow repo >>> if >>> we see it happening again? >>> >>> Maintainers' time is not an infinite resource, so "yes!" from me (also >>> for >>> Iceberg). >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 15:40, Russell Spitzer <russell.spit...@gmail.com >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> > This is pretty disturbing and I hope that any users out there see that >>> > using automated tools to submit issues is just adding noise to the >>> project >>> > which makes it very hard for real issues to be addressed. >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:58 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> - Iceberg dev to not flood them :) (in bcc:) >>> >> >>> >> It looks like the flood had been somehow flood-gated - no similar >>> report >>> >> for the last 4 hours or so. >>> >> >>> >> I also started to receive confirmation from Github that they are >>> looking >>> >> at the reports, so likely we do not have to do any action now, but I >>> >> think we can turn it into deciding about "future" reactions when >>> something >>> >> like this happens, so that we can potentially react quickly >>> >> >>> >> What do others think ? Should we react and block new users from >>> >> interacting with Airflow repo if we see it happening again? Maybe >>> >> temporarily - for a day or two initially - after reporting some >>> initial >>> >> reports? Does it sound reasonable? >>> >> >>> >> J. >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:35 AM Pavankumar Gopidesu < >>> >> gopidesupa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> +1 from me. >>> >>> >>> >>> It looks started yesterday, I feel we may get many of these tickets >>> when >>> >>> new users starts testing those AI agents. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Pavan Kumar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025, 10:27 Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > We continue getting new issues - and more of them are by "new >>> users" - >>> >>> > created just an hour or so ago. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Apparently Github has a way to temporarily limit interactions with >>> the >>> >>> repo >>> >>> > for new users - see this screenshot: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > https://ibb.co/WWsr7RB >>> >>> > >>> >>> > And I think I'd be for enabling it - we will need an INFRA ticket >>> for >>> >>> that, >>> >>> > because that's not currently configurable via .asf.yaml - and >>> maybe if >>> >>> > Iceberg would like to do it as well, we can create a single ticket >>> for >>> >>> > that. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > There is a new framework coming to enable faster implementation and >>> >>> testing >>> >>> > of .asf.yaml features (this was discussed at the latest >>> roundtable) - >>> >>> and >>> >>> > we can contribute a feature to add it in .asf.yaml soon, but >>> >>> temporarily we >>> >>> > might want to ask INFRA to help. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > WDYT? If I hear a few voices for +1 and no strong opposition I will >>> >>> open a >>> >>> > JIRA ticket (and would love to hear what Iceberg friends of ours >>> think >>> >>> as >>> >>> > well :) >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > J. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:36 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > > Yeah. just closed this one. The pattern where those are coming >>> at the >>> >>> > same >>> >>> > > time as two unrelated issues to both iceberg and airflow are >>> very. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> > > strange >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:35 AM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >> Another one who also opened issues in Airflow and Iceberg >>> >>> > >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/12034 >>> >>> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45920 >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> Same "mistake" with the # Title. >>> >>> > >> All of these seem to come with accounts opened months ago, with >>> some >>> >>> > minor >>> >>> > >> traffic to their own forks so they would appear legit to Github >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:23 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com >>> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> > Yeah. Again - my guess is that those are "Agentic AI" trials, >>> >>> where >>> >>> > >> someone >>> >>> > >> > is deploying fake "agent" accounts acting as "people in the >>> repo >>> >>> > would". >>> >>> > >> > That's a bit terrifying if this is not contained. >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:52 AM Fokko Driesprong < >>> >>> fo...@apache.org> >>> >>> > >> wrote: >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > That's quite a few! I also noticed that they sometimes >>> >>> self-close >>> >>> > the >>> >>> > >> > issue >>> >>> > >> > > (eg here <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/12032>). >>> >>> Closed >>> >>> > >> > after 1 >>> >>> > >> > > minute, but still flooding my mailbox :D >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > So you might have more such issues now than you think. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > Yes, that's probably the case, still going through my >>> mailbox. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > Op wo 22 jan 2025 om 09:49 schreef Jarek Potiuk < >>> >>> ja...@potiuk.com>: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > > Example case: >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > * https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45904 - >>> airflow >>> >>> > >> > > > * https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/12034 - >>> iceberg >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > Both issues are generic and useless and bring 0 value >>> except >>> >>> > noise. >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > Interesting thing is that many of those users, if you >>> look at >>> >>> > their >>> >>> > >> > > > history - created. similar number of issues in iceberg and >>> >>> airflow >>> >>> > >> > about >>> >>> > >> > > > the same time. So you might have more such issues now >>> than you >>> >>> > >> think. >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > J. >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:41 AM Jarek Potiuk < >>> >>> ja...@potiuk.com> >>> >>> > >> wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >> I have not counted all of them. there are quite a bit too >>> >>> many - >>> >>> > >> and >>> >>> > >> > > >> other people closed some of them as well. I got a very >>> >>> > rudimentary >>> >>> > >> > check >>> >>> > >> > > >> and applied "AI Spam" label to some of the issues >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aclosed%20AI%20label%3A%22AI%20Spam%22 >>> >>> > >> > > . >>> >>> > >> > > >> -> so we have had at least 25 such issues in the last 12 >>> >>> hours. >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >> > we also want to make sure that we don't accidentally >>> close >>> >>> > issues >>> >>> > >> > that >>> >>> > >> > > >> don't come from a bot, but just a newcomer to the >>> project. >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >> Those reports and patterns look very. very human-like - >>> they >>> >>> are >>> >>> > >> > > reported >>> >>> > >> > > >> infrequently (per user) the description and text seem >>> >>> legitimate, >>> >>> > >> but >>> >>> > >> > > they >>> >>> > >> > > >> are wordy and just reading and understanding that those >>> are >>> >>> > >> completely >>> >>> > >> > > >> useless takes a lot of time. This is part of the problem, >>> >>> that it >>> >>> > >> > takes >>> >>> > >> > > a >>> >>> > >> > > >> lot of energy and time to determine if those are valid or >>> >>> not - >>> >>> > and >>> >>> > >> > with >>> >>> > >> > > >> such a rate, it's not sustainable just to analyze whether >>> >>> they >>> >>> > are >>> >>> > >> > good >>> >>> > >> > > or >>> >>> > >> > > >> bad. >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >> J. >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:23 AM Fokko Driesprong < >>> >>> > fo...@apache.org >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >> wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> Hey Jarek, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. When you talk >>> >>> about >>> >>> > >> > > flooding, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> how many are we talking about? I see some suspicious >>> issues >>> >>> (eg, >>> >>> > >> here >>> >>> > >> > > >>> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/12039>), but >>> not >>> >>> > many. >>> >>> > >> I >>> >>> > >> > > >>> hope this will come to a halt soon because it all >>> additional >>> >>> > work, >>> >>> > >> > and >>> >>> > >> > > we >>> >>> > >> > > >>> also want to make sure that we don't accidentally close >>> >>> issues >>> >>> > >> that >>> >>> > >> > > don't >>> >>> > >> > > >>> come from a bot, but just a newcomer to the project. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> Fokko >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> Op wo 22 jan 2025 om 09:00 schreef Jarek Potiuk < >>> >>> > ja...@potiuk.com >>> >>> > >> >: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > Hey Iceberg community, And Airflow community too. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > As of yesterday Airflow repo is literally flooded >>> with a >>> >>> > number >>> >>> > >> of >>> >>> > >> > > >>> issues >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > that look almost good, except they are clearly AI >>> >>> generated >>> >>> > and >>> >>> > >> > make >>> >>> > >> > > no >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > sense or repeat content from other issues. We noticed >>> >>> that the >>> >>> > >> > users >>> >>> > >> > > >>> who >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > create a lot of the "spam AI" issues that are created >>> in >>> >>> > Airflow >>> >>> > >> > are >>> >>> > >> > > >>> also >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > creating similar issues for Iceberg. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > We got to the point that we are closing and reporting >>> such >>> >>> > >> issues >>> >>> > >> > to >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > GitHub and we are blocking all such users without >>> >>> spending too >>> >>> > >> much >>> >>> > >> > > >>> time on >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > it with messages similar to this: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > ``` >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > This looks totally AI-generated. useless issue report >>> that >>> >>> > >> brings >>> >>> > >> > no >>> >>> > >> > > >>> value >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > and makes no sense. We are generally blocking users >>> that >>> >>> > sends a >>> >>> > >> > lot >>> >>> > >> > > of >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > spam AI reports generated by bots.. as of yesterday >>> so we >>> >>> will >>> >>> > >> > report >>> >>> > >> > > >>> your >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > account and block it unless: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > a) you explain how you generated reports >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > b) prove you are human >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > c) explain why you created the issue >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > ``` >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > My guess is that some company released and is testing >>> an >>> >>> > >> "agentic >>> >>> > >> > AI" >>> >>> > >> > > >>> that >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > is "github-targeted" - where people can run the AI >>> agents >>> >>> on >>> >>> > >> their >>> >>> > >> > > >>> behalf. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > It does not look like regular bot-spam. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > I think we should all generally crowd-source >>> reporting it >>> >>> to >>> >>> > >> > Github - >>> >>> > >> > > >>> and >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > hopefully they will find a way to battle those without >>> >>> > involving >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > maintainers. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > I hope it will not last too long. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > J. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > From: Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 8:12 AM >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > Subject: Re: Very strange (AI generated) issues >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > To: <d...@airflow.apache.org> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > You can also report it directly from the issue (... at >>> >>> the top >>> >>> > >> and >>> >>> > >> > > >>> "report >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > content") >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 7:46 AM Amogh Desai < >>> >>> > >> > > amoghdesai....@gmail.com> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> Elad, I just managed to report this user. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> This is how its done: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> https://docs.github.com/en/communities/maintaining-your-safety-on-github/reporting-abuse-or-spam#reporting-a-user >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> Thanks & Regards, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> Amogh Desai >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:05 PM Elad Kalif < >>> >>> > >> elad...@apache.org> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > There are several reports from this user >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > https://github.com/atharv9017 >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > I didnt find a way to report the user account to >>> >>> github. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > בתאריך יום ד׳, 22 בינו׳ 2025, 06:41, מאת Pavankumar >>> >>> > Gopidesu >>> >>> > >> < >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > gopidesupa...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > Yes, still issues are coming. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > Regards, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > Pavan >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 4:35 AM Amogh Desai < >>> >>> > >> > > >>> amoghdesai....@gmail.com >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > I saw a couple of such SPAM issues too. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > I also recall some SPAM comments on pull >>> requests >>> >>> as >>> >>> > >> well, >>> >>> > >> > so >>> >>> > >> > > >>> if any >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > contributor sees any such SPAM message, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > please report it on Slack so that we can >>> delete it >>> >>> and >>> >>> > >> > report >>> >>> > >> > > >>> it. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > Thanks & Regards, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > Amogh Desai >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 8:45 AM Zhe You Liu < >>> >>> > >> > > >>> zhu424....@gmail.com> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > I came across another strange issue: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45837. >>> >>> It >>> >>> > >> > appears >>> >>> > >> > > >>> to be >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> a >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > copy-paste of >>> >>> > >> > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45661 >>> >>> > >> > > >>> with >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > just >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > the >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > issue title changed. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:50 AM Jarek Potiuk >>> < >>> >>> > >> > > >>> ja...@potiuk.com> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > I even got to this stage: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > We've received a few new tickets from >>> your >>> >>> > account >>> >>> > >> > > >>> recently. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> If >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > you'd >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > like to add additional information you can >>> add >>> >>> a >>> >>> > >> comment >>> >>> > >> > > to >>> >>> > >> > > >>> an >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > existing >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > ticket, or wait a few minutes before >>> opening a >>> >>> new >>> >>> > >> > ticket. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:49 PM Jarek >>> Potiuk < >>> >>> > >> > > >>> ja...@potiuk.com >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > There are few more that I still saw after >>> >>> sending >>> >>> > >> it. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> There is >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > something >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > going on bypassing GitHub filters. I >>> hope >>> >>> they >>> >>> > >> will >>> >>> > >> > > >>> manage >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> to do >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > something >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > about it >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > Last one is >>> >>> > >> > > >>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45867 >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:46 PM Vikram >>> Koka >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > <vik...@astronomer.io.invalid> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> Agreed. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> Thanks for flagging these Jarek! >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 2:34 PM Jarek >>> >>> Potiuk < >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> ja...@potiuk.com> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > wrote: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > Seems that we have a flood of AI >>> generated >>> >>> > >> feature >>> >>> > >> > > >>> requests >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > for >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > Airflow, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > The issues look somewhat legitimate, >>> with >>> >>> > >> somewhat >>> >>> > >> > > >>> related >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > content, >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > but >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > they are wordy and make no sense when >>> you >>> >>> read >>> >>> > >> > them. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> Some >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > examples: >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > * >>> >>> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45858 >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > * >>> >>> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45856 >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > * >>> >>> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45854 >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > All of them done by accounts with >>> short >>> >>> > history >>> >>> > >> in >>> >>> > >> > GH >>> >>> > >> > > >>> and >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> not >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > much >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> activity >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > before >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > There were quite a few more. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > I suggest we close such issues AND >>> report >>> >>> > >> authors >>> >>> > >> > to >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> GitHub - >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > hopefully >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> we >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > can help to battle the AI-generated >>> >>> traffic >>> >>> > >> flood. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > J. >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>
