I'm wondering if you foresee remaining open to new contributors or focusing on a trusted set of like minded contributors? How much time are you willing to spend enforcing this policy? (To put my cards on the table I think it's good for projects to pursue different and incompatible agendas and if you are volunteering to conduct this experiment I think that is great and genuinely wish you the best, I'm just wondering whether this will become a tarpit that either soaks up all of your time or makes onboarding new contributors take an inordinate amount of time.)

▲

femboyvtuber 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I'm just wondering whether this will become a tarpit that either soaks up all of your time or makes onboarding new contributors take an inordinate amount of time.

In an ideal world, LLM users would simply steer clear of trying to contribute instead of trying to hide it and direct their energy and tokens elsewhere

▲

maxbond 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree the onus should be on people not to create a nuisance but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. Descriptively, normatively I agree that people ought to be considerate and reasonable.

	▲	femboyvtuber 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do not have a skin in the game for repository being ai vs no ai bit ( and I am biased as I work for one of the major AI labs now, need to put food on the table ) but, not directed toward you -- I genuinely do not understand why so many people that are pro-AI do not understand consent. There are people one comment downdown this tree talking about this being discrimination and harassment. It's not your project, you don't have a human right to contribute to it ... fork it ? direct your tokens elsewhere ? Wwhy the default with AI users seeming to try to nonconsensually force your way in while trying to hide it and consider it a one-up on the maintainer ?