Much in the same way that laws don’t prevent crime, a project banning AI contributions doesn’t stop people from trying to sneak in LLM slop, it instead lets the project ban them without argument.
These people are flooding free projects with shite code: they lack that level of self-awareness.
But you believe a formal declaration that they don’t want AI crap code will stop complaints from the degenerates who then try to sneak it in? Or the people who complain that they’re “needlessly denying good code”? People will always complain and argue.
I’m not awake enough (nor qualified enough) to get into “laws” and what they’re “actually for” but sufficed to say that I don’t think the analogy applies to a curated resource. Sure, it’s free but it does have an owner and you can’t stop the owner from doing what they want with it, including unilaterally canning random contributions. You just fork it.
Is all AI code tagged “hey, Claude made this puddle of piss code”?
This is a real “just catch all the criminals” type comment.
Much in the same way that laws don’t prevent crime, a project banning AI contributions doesn’t stop people from trying to sneak in LLM slop, it instead lets the project ban them without argument.
These people are flooding free projects with shite code: they lack that level of self-awareness.
But you believe a formal declaration that they don’t want AI crap code will stop complaints from the degenerates who then try to sneak it in? Or the people who complain that they’re “needlessly denying good code”? People will always complain and argue.
I’m not awake enough (nor qualified enough) to get into “laws” and what they’re “actually for” but sufficed to say that I don’t think the analogy applies to a curated resource. Sure, it’s free but it does have an owner and you can’t stop the owner from doing what they want with it, including unilaterally canning random contributions. You just fork it.