In a nutshell: It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.

Yes, and I think the reasons set out in TFA are interesting, which on my reading are:

1) Code is the least interesting bit in some ways - they’re trying to build not only rust but a community of experts around rust which is able to maintain and improve it in the long term and the authors of prs need to understand the code deeply and show a willingness to be part of that long run. Llm-generated code even if it looks polished doesn’t indicate a human author who deeply understands it and is willing to be part of that long term maintenance.

2) They don’t have (and don’t want to enforce) a community consensus that llms are good or llms are bad. They just want some rules written down so everyone knows where they stand and people of either camp (and none) can get on with it.

Seems a pretty reasonable approach to me although I don’t really use rust much so don’t have a vested interest.

Creation is still allowed:

>Pre-arranged, non-critical, high-quality, well-tested, and well-reviewed code changes that are originally created by an LLM are allowed, with disclosure.

Sounds like the beginning of the end of rust to me

AI is a jet engine - Banning is for creation is like saying "we require you to go by ship/car/propeller-plane"

Yes, a policy that says AI slop PRs will not be tolerated. But I've had AI track down real hard to find bugs in several projects and provide correct fixes. I've also had AI build new features and new products. The project that ignores this acceleration will eventually fall behind the ones that embrace it.

Hmm, that doesn't sound too bad. So you basically get to use a tool to help with the tedious parts, without being allowed to use the same tool to pass off said tedium to others.

This closes the gap. A key insight. A load bearing difference.

Now, is writing code considered tedium, for a project like Rust?