I never said anything is wrong with the policy. Or with the tool use for that matter.

This whole chain was one person saying “AI is creating such a burden that projects are having to ban it”, someone else being willfully obtuse and saying “nuh uh, they’re actually still letting a very restricted set of people use it”, and now an increasingly tangential series of comments.

▲

literalAardvark 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I feel like you're still failing to grasp the point.

The only difference is that before AI the number of low effort PRs was limited by the number of people who are both lazy and know enough programming, which is a small set because a person is very unlikely to be both.

Now it's limited to people who are lazy and can run ollama with a 5M model, which is a much larger set.

It's not an AI code problem by itself. AI can make good enough code.

It's a denial of service by the lazy against the reviewers, which is a very very different problem.

	▲	dpark 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No one is missing your point. The issue is that you are responding a point no one made. The grounding premise of this comment chain was “AI submitted patches being more of a burden than a boon”. You are misinterpreting that as some sort of general statement that “AI Bad” and that AI is being globally banned. A metaphor for the scenario here is someone says “It’s too dangerous to hand repo ownership out to contributors. Projects aren’t doing that anymore.” And someone else comes in to say “That’s not true! There are still repo owners. They are just limiting it to a select group now!” This statement of fact is only an interesting rebut if you misinterpret the first statement to say that no one will own the repo because repo ownership is fundamentally bad. > It's a denial of service by the lazy against the reviewers, which is a very very different problem. And it is AI enabling this behavior. Which was the premise above.