[surgical_fire]

> That being said, to outright ban a technology in 2026 on pure "vibes" is not something I'd say is reasonable.

To outright accept LLM contributions would be as much "pure vibes" as banning it.

The thing is, those that maintain open source projects have to make a decision where they want to spend their time. It's open source, they are not being paid for it, they should and will decide what it acceptable and what is not.

If you dislike it, you are free to fork it and make a "LLM's welcome" fork. If, as you imply, the LLM contributions are invaluable, your fork should eventually become the better choice.

Or you can complain to the void that open source maintainers don't want to deal with low effort vibe coded bullshit PRs.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>Or you can complain to the void that open source maintainers don't want to deal with low effort vibe coded bullshit PRs.

If you look back and think about what your saying for a minute, it's that low effort PRs are bad.

Using an LLM to assist in development does not instantly make the whole work 'low effort'.

It's also unenforceable and will create AI witch hunts. Someone used an em-dash in a 500 line PR? Oh the horror that's a reject and ban from the project.

2000 line PR where the user launched multiple agents going over the PR for 'AI patterns'? Perfectly acceptable, no AI here.

[surgical_fire]

> Using an LLM to assist in development does not instantly make the whole work 'low effort'.

Instantly? No, of course not.

I do use LLMs for development, and I am very careful with how I use it. I throughly review the code it generated (unless I am asking for throwaway scripts, because then I only care about the immediate output).

But I am not naive. We both know that a lot of people just vibe code the way through, results be damned.

I am not going to fault people devoting their free time on Open Source for not wanting to deal with bullshit. A blanket ban is perfectly acceptable.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Your reply is based on a 100% bad-faith, intellectually dishonest interpretation of the comment to which you’re replying. You know that. Nobody claimed that LLM code should be outright accepted. Also, nobody claimed that open source maintainers have the right to accept or decline based on whichever criteria they choose. To always come back to this point is so…American. It’s a cop-out. It’s a thought-terminating cliche. If you aren’t interested in discussing the merits of the decision, don’t bother joining the conversation. The world doesn’t need you to explain what consent is.

Most of all, I’m sick of the patronising “don’t forget that you can fork the project!” What’s the point of saying this? We all know. Nobody needs to be reminded. Nobody isn’t aware. You aren’t being clever. You aren’t adding anything to the conversation. You’re being snarky.

[surgical_fire]

> Nobody claimed that LLM code should be outright accepted

Not directly, but that's the implication.

I just did not pretend that was not the implication.

> always come back to this point is so…American

I am not American.

To be frank, this was the most insulting thing someone ever told me online. Congratulations. I feel insulted. You win this one.

> If you aren’t interested in discussing the merits of the decision, don’t bother joining the conversation.

I will join whatever conversation I want, and to my desires I adressed the merits of the discussion perfectly.

You are not the judge here, your opinion is as meaningless as mine.

> Most of all, I’m sick of the patronising “don’t forget that you can fork the project!” What’s the point of saying this?

That sounds like a "you" problem. You will be sick of it until the end of time, because that's the final right answer to any complaints of open source project governance.

> You aren’t adding anything to the conversation. You’re being snarky.

I disagree. In fact, I contributed more than you. I adressed arguments. You went on a whinging session about me.