[jbstack]

Isn't it then more reasonable to have a policy that "people who submit low quality PRs will be banned"? Target the actual problem rather than an unreliable proxy of the problem.

LLM-generated code can be high quality just as human-generated code can be low quality.

Also, having a "no recourse" policy is a bit hostile to your community. There will no doubt be people who get flagged as using LLMs when they didn't and denying them even a chance to defend themselves is harsh.

[Ekaros]

Banning LLMs can result in shorter arguments. "Low quality" is overly subjective and will probably take a lot of time to argue about. And then the possible outrage if it is taken to social media.

[jbstack]

> Banning LLMs can result in shorter argument

Can it really? "You submitted LLM-generated contributions" is also highly subjective. Arguably more so since you can't ever really be sure if somethingi s AI generated while with quality issues there are concrete things you can point to (e.g. it the code simply doesn't work, doesn't meet the contributor guidelines, uses obvious anti-patterns etc.).

[63stack]

If you rtfa, you will find it's actually the other way around. The linked PR from the AI has "concrete things you can point to" like "the code simply doesn't work".