Human proof for FOSS contributions
The article discusses the challenges of verifying whether code contributions to FOSS projects are made by humans or generated by LLMs. It proposes using asciinema recordings of programming sessions as a potential proof of human contribution, capturing the nuances of human coding behavior. While this method has its limitations, it may help reduce reliance on trust in contributors.
- ▪Asciinema recordings can capture the human essence of programming, including mistakes and thought processes.
- ▪The method is simple for users, requiring minimal effort to start and stop recordings.
- ▪There are concerns that LLMs could eventually mimic human-like asciinema recordings, but current attempts have not succeeded.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Human proof for FOSS contributions Written on 2026-05-25 by Rodrigo Arias Mallo When receiving patches from first-time contributors it is sometimes hard to determine if the person has used an LLM to write the patch, looking at the code alone. We usually rely on the person's good behavior to tell the truth, as the patch mimics the same style as a person would have written, including comments and variable names. In Dillo we only want to accept fully human created contributions, but relying on unknown people to tell the truth doesn't seem to be very conforting. So I would like to find a better mechanism to distinguish LLM patches from human-made. I've been playing around with asciinema to record and replay some programming sessions in vim.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Dillo-browser.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Dillo-browser
%2Ffile%2Fdailymaverick%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F11%2FProfile-pic-1.jpg&w=320)
