I get the feeling that banning AI code from a project nowadays ends up with people lying about their AI usage. I think the approach other projects take where AI may be used, but the contributor holds the responsibility for it is more appropriate

▲

IsTom 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

What is the mechanism to hold the contributor responsible after the merge?

	▲	account42 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Especially the contributor that would otherwise lie about their usage if it was outright banned.

▲

JoshTriplett 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I get the feeling that banning AI code from a project nowadays ends up with people lying about their AI usage.

"If we set boundaries, people will violate them, so we shouldn't set boundaries."

No. It turns out, empirically, that most efforts to hide LLM usage are mostly unsuccessful. And most people aren't even trying to hide it.

Also, "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero": https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... . We could go even further and even stricter trying to make sure that zero dishonest LLM usage gets through even from people trying to subvert the contribution policy, but that would make the experience worse for genuine contributors, not least of which because of false positives.

▲

motahir_alam 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Agree, it's the contributor's responsibility to understand the PR thoroughly. If not, it's not ready for a PR or review yet.