That article reads like it was written by AI. Feels like a ChatGPT bullet list just with the emojis deleted. They also didn’t really say much specific about the FOSS dev burnout, just generic explanation about what burnout is. The article cites a study but then instead of talking about things from it, it just says generic slop about how a burned out FOSS dev could feel.
Edit: I feel like my comment contradicts itself but it’s hard to put into words exactly what’s wrong with the article but it just reads so poorly.
The article is short, and myself I like to write longer, more detailed texts. But few people nowadays have the patience to read ten, five, or three pages of text.
Also, I am becoming wary about the trolling / disinformation tactic to qualify something as AI that you do not like. If a piece of text is wrong, it will have logic failures that you can address and point to.
And said that, burn-out is a real problem, I can confirm that. Not only in FOSS software but in other fields of software development, too - but the article also cites real factors which make it worse for open source development. And it is not only a threath for the mental health of individuals, but also for the community.
And the aspect of entitlement of some users is true, too.
I was commenting about the way its written. I know burnout is real — even in FOSS we’ve had the xz backdoor basically caused by overworked maintainer. I was just expecting something less generic. The whole article could have been the first paragraph. The rest was just generic (maybe AI generated) slop without citations (There is your logic error I guess?). I would instead expect the article to refer to the study or refer to other articles or something.
That article reads like it was written by AI. Feels like a ChatGPT bullet list just with the emojis deleted. They also didn’t really say much specific about the FOSS dev burnout, just generic explanation about what burnout is. The article cites a study but then instead of talking about things from it, it just says generic slop about how a burned out FOSS dev could feel.
Edit: I feel like my comment contradicts itself but it’s hard to put into words exactly what’s wrong with the article but it just reads so poorly.
I do not really see that.
The article is short, and myself I like to write longer, more detailed texts. But few people nowadays have the patience to read ten, five, or three pages of text.
Also, I am becoming wary about the trolling / disinformation tactic to qualify something as AI that you do not like. If a piece of text is wrong, it will have logic failures that you can address and point to.
And said that, burn-out is a real problem, I can confirm that. Not only in FOSS software but in other fields of software development, too - but the article also cites real factors which make it worse for open source development. And it is not only a threath for the mental health of individuals, but also for the community.
And the aspect of entitlement of some users is true, too.
I was commenting about the way its written. I know burnout is real — even in FOSS we’ve had the xz backdoor basically caused by overworked maintainer. I was just expecting something less generic. The whole article could have been the first paragraph. The rest was just generic (maybe AI generated) slop without citations (There is your logic error I guess?). I would instead expect the article to refer to the study or refer to other articles or something.
I agree, the article is in the uncanny valley where it just feels off. If it weren’t for AI slop, I would call it clickbait.
It’s definitely click fodder like 99.99999% of today’s content. That’s where we’re at because many years ago we let the pigs into the palace.