ivorius

Alright, I'll explore the options when I work on it next. Thank you for the feedback!

Thanks!

Unfortunately most of the data sources are Germany only. It would take a lot of research to find equivalents for the UK, as well as another round of fine tuning on the algorithms.

That being said, I would love to see it too. It's MIT so perhaps someone will fork it some day.

Oh, interesting. I usually don't spend much time zoomed out.

Would highlighting the name while it's hovered help?

I could also add a tab that lists the top spots in the current view frame.

Thanks!

What exactly would you use the ranked list for? You can zoom into the map (which should make hover less finnicky), compare two places (on the "Vergleich" tab), and the top ~5 places currently in view are highlighted with a red dot. Maybe one of those already helps?

Unfortunately, only a single PR like this comes to mind. Most AI authors we've seen were identifiable mainly by overly verbose PR descriptions, meaningless code changes and copy-pasting more AI output when questioned.

If people knew how to get AI to write terse, focused summaries, sure, that might help. I haven't seen many that do (well, ignoring the toupee fallacy).

Though the most important aspect is that we need to know the motivation and thought process, and all AI can do is fabricate a 'plausible' one.

Right. Reviewers still have the advantage of being able to spot AI text because it's often overtly different. I just meant to say that, if you prompt ai "what would a human be proud of having written this code" you'll get an answer. They're not categorically incapable of fabricating an "opinion", they're just trained not to express one by default.

AI is well-capable of fabricating text that looks like an opinion in 2026. This would not help differentiate AI from human authors.

> what if code contributions objectively improve something?

If the contribution is complex enough, it is no longer an 'objective improvement' but rather a judgement call, and in the process becomes copyrightable. This is where the trouble lies, and why this kind of AI involvement is banned.

If it is not, for example by being a one-line fix that literally cannot be performed differently, it's a different story. Then it can be merged, viewed either as a menial change (exempt by the ban) or by transfer of ownership (the reviewer becomes the effective author) because it is not copyrightable.

The Godot maintainers do review based on the quality of contributor's past contributions. Those becoming especially proficient can even become maintainers.

Allowing AI use by 'trusted contributors' has been suggested and discussed, but there were enough reasons against it and not enough established benefit.

> - Negative: Submitters just add stylistic markers to make their accounts and output seem human-generated. This is like syntactic sugar: the core content and the size of contributions stay the same, but the style gets quirkier.

From my experience reviewing, most contributors never read the policies, especially those making a "quick AI PR". I don't expect the new policy to change this much.

> Positive: Submitters actually provide to-the-point, no-bullshit commits and comments

That would be a dream.

The writer got it wrong. Godot never did accept fully AI-authored code contributions. What's changed now is that Godot prohibits any substantial AI written code (though this was already mostly enacted before making it policy).