At face value a policy that essentially prohibits AI generated implementation seems entirely unreasonable to me.

I guess that's where the rage comes from. People that believe a policy is without reason.

	▲	user43928 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I said at face value because there was no reason given in either the policy nor the article submitted here. It would be interesting to know why they decided for a general prohibition, rather than going with the default "a human must be responsible for the contribution" kind of policy. Perhaps they have received a flood of undesirable AI generated contributions, and actual contributors do not use AI significantly.