BTW. Next escalation step if this does not help will be to go to all the repos where those users created the issues and comment on them, explain the situation and to ask them to react in similar ways. There are quite a number of those repos now - react, Pinot, Typescript, .....
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 2:53 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > Starting at Linkedin. They don't seem to be on Mastodon or Bluesky, I quit > X and don't care any more for content there. > > -> if you would like to share it, feel free: > > > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jarekpotiuk_outlier-you-are-doing-it-wrong-please-activity-7289278690213990400-MOuC > > > J. > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 2:43 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> Ok. The issue continues. I am raising to a bit higher level and start to >> complain on https://outlier.ai/ in social media - they are driving those >> issues. >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 7:59 PM Russell Spitzer < >> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Obviously as an OSS Dev I don't mind folks profiting from the work I'm >>> doing as >>> long as they collaborate with the community in good faith. But this feels >>> like well beyond >>> the pale in creating additional work only in bad faith, but also not as a >>> member >>> of the community. >>> >>> Personally it's very upsetting to me to spend time helping someone on an >>> issue only to realize >>> that not only do they not care, but they also were paid to waste my time >>> to >>> make someone >>> else money. Being welcoming to users who don't understand the project is >>> difficult and time >>> consuming and I'd hate it if we can't do that because there is too much >>> risk that the user isn't >>> even real. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:49 PM Piotr Findeisen < >>> piotr.findei...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >> >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >> >>> >>>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>>> >>> > >> > >>> >>>> >>> > >> >>> >>>> >>> > > >>> >>>> >>> > >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>
