nah, it’s a dumb policy which will be impossible to maintain in the years to come.

Maybe in the years to come but the shit code flood gates are open now when the tech isn’t good enough for the job.

Interesting policy… I suspect it falls apart in the details though. Like, there are plenty of creative elements in responding to questions (and any of the other categories). That mean there will be lots of weird edge cases that are hard to adjudicate. And those GenAI components of “non-creative” categories will have ripple effects into the broader project and community (as they are everywhere, so maybe not that important for a.policy to grapple with, IDK).

Yeah in theory I could have a model suggest code through a PR and then review said PR and just be the one to hit squash and merge and it technically only suggested and reviewed and I “created” the PR

But if you actually described this methodology in your PR, then it’d no doubt be closed immediately, based on the spirit of the rules rather than the exact letter of the rules.

Rules like these ultimately presuppose that the contributor is acting in good faith. Because otherwise the contributor could just lie about using an LLM. They don’t need to engage in rules-lawyering or jump through hoops to circumvent the rules

Rules like these ultimately presuppose that the contributor is acting in good faith.

All of civilization is based on that.

That mean there will be lots of weird edge cases that are hard to adjudicate.

Humans a pretty decent at that. Source: Of all things, moderation, where even if you have nice rules written up, it feels like half the reports are edge cases and you just have to make a call.

I suspect they’ll be able to handle making those calls. Get some wrong, get most right, that’s probably good enough.

Agreed… although this still leaves the horrible environmental effects and losing any kind of ownership ofethe code

But solely in terms of using “ai” as a tool, it is a sensible approach