Mesa Project Adds Code Comprehension Requirement After AI Slop Incident
Recently [Faith Ekstrand] announced on Mastodon that Mesa was updating its contributor guide. This follows a recent AI slop incident where someone submitted a massive patch to the Mesa project with the claim that this would improve performance ‘by a few percent’. The catch? The entire patch was generated by ChatGPT, with the submitter becoming somewhat irate when the very patient Mesa developers tried to explain that they’d happily look at the issue after the submitter had condensed the purported ‘improvement’ into a bite-sized patch.
The entire saga is summarized in a recent video by [Brodie Robertson] which highlights both how incredibly friendly the Mesa developers are, and how the use of ChatGPT and kin has made some people with zero programming skills apparently believe that they can now contribute code to OSS projects. Unsurprisingly, the Mesa developers were unable to disabuse this particular individual from that notion, but the diff to the Mesa contributor guide by [Timur Kristóf] should make abundantly clear that someone playing Telephone between a chatbot and OSS project developers is neither desirable nor helpful.
That said, [Brodie] also highlights a recent post by [Daniel Stenberg] of Curl fame, who thanked [Joshua Rogers] for contributing a massive list of potential issues that were found using ‘AI-assisted tools’, as detailed in this blog post by [Joshua]. An important point here is that these ‘AI tools’ are not LLM-based chatbots, but rather tweaked existing tools like static code analyzers with more smarts bolted on. They’re purpose-made tools that still require you to know what you’re doing, but they can be a real asset to a developer, and a heck of a lot more useful to a project like Curl than getting sent fake bug reports by a confabulating chatbot as has happened previously.
youtube.com/embed/4d8jLfa5Mx8?…
hackaday.com/2025/10/01/mesa-p…
Mesa is working to update our contributor guide. Can you guess why?Did you guess AI?
Because if you did, you'd be right. I don't want to put anyone on blast here so please don't go digging to find the motivating MR and harass the contributor or anything like that.
But the situation was exactly what you might think. Someone ran ChatGPT on the code and asked it for suggestions on making it more performant. They applied a bunch of the changes against their local branch, tested it, and found that it gave maybe a 0.5-1.0% perf boost in some titles.
That's totally fine. I don't care what tools you use to find a bottleneck. I'll happily take more FPS, no matter who found the issue or how. If some AI assistant helps you find things no one else has found and lets us make drivers faster, great!
But that's not what happened.
What happened next is that they then tried to make it the Mesa project maintainers' job to sort through the shit ChatGPT spit out and decide what's useful and what's not and why the changes helped and whether or not they were correct. The contributor had no no idea and, more importantly, they had no desire to actually learn about the Mesa code-base or the hardware in question. They just wanted to run ChatGPT and send its suggestions towards upstream.
This is not useful. This is not contributing. It's just burning maintainer time sorting through AI hallucinations. We have enough mediocre code to review that comes from actual humans who are actually trying to learn about Mesa and help out. We don't need to add AI shit to the merge request pile. If you don't understand the patch well enough to be able to describe what it does and why it makes things faster, don't submit it.
So now we're making it really clear: If you submit the merge request, you're responsible for the code change as if you typed it yourself. You don't get to claim ignorance and "because the AI said so". It's your responsibility to do due diligence to make sure it's correct and to accurately describe the change in the commit message.
Some things shouldn't have to be explicitly written down but here we are... 😩