[api]

This is a spam problem more than anything else. It's not really an AI problem except that it's AI that is enabling this new type of spam.

Imagine there's no AI, but for some reason you have people hiring armies of cheap overseas devs and using them to produce mediocre quality drive-by PRs. The effect would be the same.

AI can be used to make quality code, but that requires careful use of the tool... like any other tool. This isn't careful contributions made by someone who knows the project and its goals and is good at using the tool. This is spam.

[colordrops]

Exactly, people could have "consulted Google" or "consulted stack overflow" and had the same issues. It's about the end result, not how the code got to that end result, and the submitter is responsible to make sure of the quality of the submission regardless of whether AI was used or not.

To reject submissions where the dev "consulted ai" is like rejecting iron ore that was mined by a machine rather than a human. The quality of the ore is what should be measured, not how it was obtained.

[api]

I agree, but the problem comes back to how to evaluate quality at scale. That is very hard. It’s easier to just say no AI because that at least turns off the fire hose.

[colordrops]

It sounds like they are even rejecting submissions where they even get a whiff of ai being "consulted" though. That's not quite the same as turning off the firehose.

[api]

No that’s just reactionary.

The discourse around AI in the arts, and other creative and craft fields, is utterly identical to the discourse around photography when it came out to the point that you could search and replace terms and have the same dialogue.