I’m a little perplexed though. The problem as stated is there’s too many drive-by contributions with AI slop. Isn’t the solution to define a contributor network (eg a GitHub org that you can apply to) based on trust?

The other option they proposed was a proof-of-humanity by payment, which seems much more in line with the above.

The problem with just banning AI is you didn’t solve trust, and your untrusted users are just going to drop drive-by PRs anyway. How do you know if an untrusted user did or did not use AI? In practice this likely means just aggressively closing “slop-looking” PRs from users you don’t recognize?

But then, you’re preventing your trusted community members from benefiting from AI assistance.

I’ve been advocating for defining a higher standard for AI contributors, eg an AGENTS.md that specifies some meaningful correctness bar. In this case, perhaps the PR that adds you to CONTRIBUTORS.md could to add a large novel and non-trivial end-to-end test; if you can construct problems that are easy to verify but hard to get right, then this is your “proof of work” to establish competence.

From reading the GH issue it does seem this is a placeholder solution, so I hope they find a more stable long-term resolution.

> Isn’t the solution to define a contributor network (eg a GitHub org that you can apply to) based on trust?

Yes but this is fairly tedious people work that most open source maintainers are not interested in. Once the tooling is available to make that easy, it will become more popular.