An empirical analysis of 1,000 GitHub repositories finds 118 AI policies where 78% allow GenAI contributions, 51% require disclosure, and 74% mandate human oversight.
AI Slop and the Software Commons
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
1
Pith paper citing it
abstract
In this article, we argue that AI slop in software is creating a tragedy of the commons. Individual productivity gains from AI-generated content externalize costs onto reviewer capacity, codebase integrity, public knowledge resources, collaborative trust, and the talent pipeline. AI slop is cheap to generate and expensive to review, and the review layer is already thin. Commons problems are not solved by individual restraint. We outline concrete next steps for tool developers, team leads, and educators, grounded in Ostrom's design principles for enduring commons institutions.
fields
cs.SE 1years
2026 1verdicts
UNVERDICTED 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
AI Policy, Disclosure, and Human in the Loop: How Are Contribution Guidelines Adapting to GenAI?
An empirical analysis of 1,000 GitHub repositories finds 118 AI policies where 78% allow GenAI contributions, 51% require disclosure, and 74% mandate human oversight.