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.

> 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.