I don't feel like any further definition is required. You would surely know if you had used an LLM, AI or agent while creating the code. Keeping things broad allows for simpler enforcement, otherwise you end up in the weeds arguing if seeing the Google AI search summary counts as LLM influence.

▲

perrygeo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Lol. You say no further definition is required - then proceed to outline your interpretation which is quite distinct from others. Clearly further definition is required.

If you're serious about an anti-AI policy, you owe the world a definition. It's not hard. You are making a strong statement - an outright ban. Make an equally strong case for what is and is not in scope. You must get in the weeds, since it is you yourself that is banning the weeds.

To quote Gustave Flaubert: “The art of writing is the art of discovering what you believe.” Failing to write the definition is a strong signal that no one thought through the problem.

▲

cr3ative 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No, my example is one of where you end up if you start doing granular definition (and demanding to know where the line is, to the point of absurdity).

A broad stroke based on community trust and your own self-evaluation of a very simple rule is acceptable here.

If a contributor wishes to poke the edges of the policy to try and find the line of acceptable AI/LLM usage in the project, they are probably not the kind of contributor they want.

	▲	tonyarkles 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If a contributor wishes to poke the edges of the policy to try and find the line of acceptable AI/LLM usage in the project, they are probably not the kind of contributor they want I think this is where it becomes a question of whether it’s an ideological rejection of LLMs or a technical/practical rejection of LLMs. A project that is rejecting contributions where LLMs are used purely because of the “we can’t handle the amount of newbie generated inbound slop” would, in theory at least, have minimal issue where the contribution is, in fact, indistinguishable from human-only contribution. “This person has put together a solid clean patch that solves a real problem” sounds like a great kind of contributor to have. On the other hand, a project that rejects LLM-assisted patches because of ideology or social or environmental concerns might actually hate a contributor like this even more than a random drive-by slop contributor.