Don't put words in my ~mouth~ (keyboard) that I didn't ~say~ (type), I'm not saying I want my contributions to be accepted on equal footing even if they are generated by AI. What I'm saying is that solving this problem this way is going to make opensource much worse. We need a better way, and I'm not sure which is the better way, sorry.

Your prior message could be taken that this was an elitist move, and not a move that is being taken by many different projects for survival with limited review capacity.

LLMs in general change the balance of how much effort generating content takes, sometimes by orders of magnitude. They unfortunately do not significantly change how much effort it takes to understand and evaluate the quality of that content. The result is that the base value of a piece of content (including code) is plummeting.

You aren't really contributing anything except funding to Anthropic/oai/MS/etc if you're sending genAI content. The better way will be fairly similar to the previous status quo: humans interacting with humans, with the change that there will be higher barriers to gaining access to the web of trust.

Opensource is already much worse and is drowning in slop. Until a better way is found (if it can be found), severely restricting contributions is the only sane response.

And it has nothing to do with the perceived "only influential people can do it". You're always welcome to fork any and all projects and run your AI on those