I don't think this is a good trend.

Projects like Servo or Redox OS are community-driven and already lack funding. Blocking AI-assisted code will only drive potential contributors away.

Some projects have built strong communities around AI-assisted development. The T3 Code community [0], for instance, is very active, and most PRs are created with LLM assistance.

The real issues are disclosure and taking responsibility for your own submissions, including carefully reading and testing your code. Code written by humans isn't inherently better in any sense.

[0]: https://github.com/pingdotgg/t3code/pulls

▲

Geventax 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If someone is only willing to contribute to a project if they are allowed to use LLMs, then I think they don't really care about the project and only about the thrill of being seen as a "contributor"

▲

archagon 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The real problem is skill atrophy. Already, many programmers claim they can’t work without the use of LLMs. It would not shock me if 95% of people calling themselves programmers today would not be able to code themselves out of a cardboard box a few years down the line. (And they’d see it as a good thing, too.)

▲

ReptileMan 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or if I use software that has a pain point (like VLC not allowing play/pause on mouse click by default, because of the stupid DVD legacy, that nobody uses the player for) - then a LLM generated quick fix is suitable.

▲

Tadpole9181 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are good reasons to not accept LLM code outside of trusted, core contributors. But this is just ridiculous purity testing.

> The free labor you provide has to be artisanal, or you're not a "real" contributor.

	▲	BobaFloutist 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Now I'm imagining an angry man, arms crossed, yelling this into a community garden from the seat of his excavator.

▲

JBits 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's great trend.

It tells me which codebases are worth studying, which libraries are high quality enough to be trusted in my code and which communities could be rewarding to contribute to.

▲

Yossarrian22 2 days ago | parent [-]

How do you square that with the Linux kernel being receptive to AI-aided contributions?

▲

quatton 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Short answer: Linux does it because they can.

I understand that @JBits' comment might imply "repositories that accept AI-assisted PRs are untrustworthy," but that's actually the inverse of what's been said, and it is not logically equivalent.

AI does write high-quality code nowadays so most repositories here might even use AI internally themselves. They banned it because they simply don't have enough capacity to ensure that quality from others.

Imagine that earlier you can just reject bad PRs from poorly written descriptions alone. Now you have more volume that passed the first gate, and second, and third. You cannot distinguish them from contributions where the author spent time into making sure it fits into the repository and actually adds a global value.

This also makes rejection harder as explaining counter-intuitive things (why good quality is bad sometimes) is naturally difficult. The idea is coherently written. The code looks beautifully written. The tests passed. What stops you from merging?

Linux has all the resources (and stakes!) it needs to welcome those contributions.

▲

benjy3379 2 days ago | parent [-]

Forbidden is bad sign, tool is not a problem, the problem is a non requested PR, large and without related issue. File read by agent himself (AGENTS.md or CONTRIBUTING) that force to have a issue first, limited diff move complexity to contributor.

▲

quatton 2 days ago | parent [-]

Agree that there will be more solutions to counteract this if it's here to stay.

Also agree about PRs without non-related issues because some repositories in the list also say so (please raise an issue first etc)

Unfortunately some maintainers will still be wary of it and our answers can't speak for all of them. Even pre-AI, some open-source did not mean open-contribution. They just treated it as "ok here's the source, enjoy"

	▲	benjy3379 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm agree too, but i think that an explicit policy is better than full tool (ai) rejection...

▲

beej71 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not the gp, but I think it's a bad idea. Linux doesn't have to make money and it's already extremely competitive.

I'm happy to see them use LLMs to find bugs, but I'd rather humans make the fix. And I'd certainly rather see humans add features.

▲

IsTom 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Blocking AI-assisted code will only drive potential contributors away.

Well, this seems to be the point of it? To drive away contributors that maintainers regard as more trouble than worth.

	▲	rpdillon 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		They drive away both contributors that are more trouble than they're worth and contributors that aren't more trouble than they're worth by using a fairly coarse-grained rule to govern allowed submissions. All of this will die down in a few years, I expect, but right now they're just trying to maintain their sanity.

▲

apt-get 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"LLM harness management project accepts PRs made by LLMs" hardly seems anything to write home about, to be honest...

▲

bakugo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't see how a project getting hundreds of entirely AI generated (not just "assisted") PRs per day means it has an active community. Scrolling through the PRs and issues on that repository, I can't find a single piece of text that reads like it was written by a human. I often find myself wondering if such projects are actually used by any real people at all, as whenever I try using them myself, I always run into very obvious bugs that go months without being fixed despite the extremely high commit activity.

If I start my own project today, and set up 50 different AI agents to commit to it in a loop 24/7, should I claim my project has an active community because of it?

▲

xtracto 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Projects like Servo or Redox OS are community-driven and already lack funding.

It's pretty interesting that for once, people have the ability to contribute $$$ that translate directly to code for the project, and maintainers dont want it. It's their choice, so that's ok.

I guess for someone using AI , it will be easier to fork the project, apply the changes and keep rebasing updates upstream.

▲

surgical_fire 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Blocking AI-assisted code will only drive potential contributors away.

I am pretty sure they can prompt LLMs on their own.

They don't need your LLM contributions. If your concern is that they lack funds, donate to the project.

▲

crote 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Every halfway-decent project will have a near-infinite stream of enthusiastic teenagers willing to "contribute" by acting as a meat proxy for whatever LLM vendor happens to have a free trial tier of their bargain-bin model that week. How do you propose a project separates their PRs from genuinely valuable human-driven AI use?

Pre-LLM it used to be pretty obvious to reviewers which PRs were complete garbage, and which were worth actually reading. Post-LLM the two look identical at first glance, and it only becomes clear that something is garbage after investing a nontrivial amount of time into it. And reviewing is where the real bottleneck lies - not writing.

So if your project welcomes AI use, who is going to dig the diamonds out of the endless flow of slop? It sure is a great way to lose volunteers, and if you delegate all work to LLMs you no longer have a community.

Having a "we ban obvious AI use" policy means that the human is essentially asked to provide a proof-of-work. Want us to invest time in your PR? First demonstrate that you aren't a time-waster.