I don't see how the two are related at all. A blanket ban on LLM-generated code is at least arguably a reasonable policy.

▲

ethmarks 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> A blanket ban on LLM-generated code is at least arguably a reasonable policy.

No, I don't think it is. There's more nuance to this debate than either "we're banning all LLM code" or "all of our features are vibe coded".

A blanket ban on unreviewed LLM code is a perfectly reasonable way to mitigate mass-produced slop PRs, but it is not reasonable to ban all code generated by an LLM. Not only is it unenforceable, but it's also counterproductive for people who genuinely get value out of it. As long as the author reviews the code carefully before opening a PR and can be held responsible, there's no problem.

	▲	jakelazaroff 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Banning all LLM code doesn't mean they see things in binary terms like that. There is nuance between "all code must have 100% test coverage" and "tests are a waste of time", for instance, but that doesn't mean a project that adopts one of those policies thinks the middle ground doesn't exist.