I feel like people are just taking the easy shortcut when making these policies and banning AI completely. With AI, it is very easy to make sloppy code where nobody didn't put much thought on it. But AI can be really useful if you have the patience to use it incrementally and not by just asking it to one shot something.

Since on average the people don't have patience and don't act with responsibility, spaghetti gets everywhere. It may sound tempting to ban the AI-generated code, but the issue is not the AI, but the lack of responsibility and potentially the the lack of experience of the developers whom are contributing with this spaghetti slop.

The judgment should go for the end result and the author is responsible if the code is bad. Add exponential back-off to contributions if they are bad.

It is also possible to brute-force maintainers with too many things to review, but you can also limit the lines of code they can contribute, unless they have some sort of reputation.

Banning the AI just means that everyone is using it, but nobody is saying it aloud. Since it saves so much time when used correctly.

I agree, the policy should be to not allow low quality submissions and have clear copyright status. There are some nuances that needs to be addressed though.

With LLMs it's too easy to replicate implementation of algorithm that is copyrighted, with manual coding it's more deliberate. Sometimes you can't really separate the algorithm from the implementation. So a maintainer needs to check the origin of any algorithm used.

The copyright status for non-algorithm code is quite straightforward and it's often a non-copyrightable code anyway (boilerplate, configuration, obvious steps, etc.). The generated code by LLM has no human author therefore it is public domain, there is no problem of incorporating of public domain code. Any copyrigtable modifications are made by the user of the LLM.

The biggest problem is the amount of low effort contributions caused by AI usage. But one could just reject it on being of low effort.

There is no need to specifically target AI in the policy, with one exception that is unique to LLM contributions: people not understanding anything about the produced code at all. One couldn't trust anything from such contributor.

> Banning the AI just means that everyone is using it, but nobody is saying it aloud. Since it saves so much time when used correctly.

Not exactly. It also attracts developers who are against AI philosophically. What I've actually seen is that there are a sizable number of people who are against AI and want a place for their code. You're also wrong that AI isn't the problem: it is. AI is the problem because it's too addictive and easy to use, and we're not rational creatures but instinctive.

Personally, I would only contribute to projects that have a complete AI-free policy. I hate AI and think it's a detriment to the human race.