Some people blindly hate AI, what everyone actually wants to ban is fully automated coding, or at least “vibe coded” submissions, if you cannot support your change without an LLM you shouldnt be pushing it into a major project.

People can 100% still use LLMs without “vibe coding” in a meaningful capacity and understand the output, and still be drastically more productive.

▲

perrygeo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

My point is, if projects are actually serious about banning AI, write that down in enforceable language. As of today, your personal interpretation of what the policy might mean likely conflicts with other's interpretations. There's no clarity on what exactly has been banned.

Put simply, if you're so convinced that AI contributions will ruin your project, you owe the world a full and complete definition of what "AI contribution" means.

	▲	giancarlostoro 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I agree with you, I'm just laying out what I believe the real ban that makes the most sense would entail. It does sound like they dont even want to hear that you used Stack Overflow if it came up from Google's Instant Answers AI thingimabob.
	▲	ragall an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> My point is, if projects are actually serious about banning AI, write that down in enforceable language. You're under the false impression that the maintainers of a project are obliged to follow the same standards as a court of law. > if you're so convinced that AI contributions will ruin your project, you owe the world a full and complete definition of what "AI contribution" means False.