[jamesu]

We've seen a few takes on this kind of issue, but the solution I liked the best was the linux "developers take full responsibility" approach. The "Assisted-by:" tag was a pretty nice touch too.

The article unfortunately feels more like a rant than a good exploration of the problem space.

[ollien]

I've struggled with this "responsibility" take. What does it mean in the context of an open source project? As far as I understand it, the original contributors of bugs are often not the ones fixing them (though they can be). Is it that if you write enough buggy code you get banned as a contributor? Is it that you're not allowed to say Claude ate my homework?

[x-complexity]

> Is it that if you write enough buggy code you get banned as a contributor?

If this is a consistent issue, your contribution would (ideally) be continuously put into a backlog until someone else with no connection to you verifies that it's as bug-free as it appears to be. (Excluding non-obvious security & performance issues)

> Is it that you're not allowed to say Claude ate my homework?

Yes. As the contributor, you should be the first one to look over the code, not someone else.

[eschaton]

If the submitter of a PR needs to take full responsibility for the code within, then the code within cannot be LLM-generated because—depending on whether you consider it an original work by the LLM or a resurrected copy of its training data—it’s either not subject to copyright or under someone else’s copyright.

(At least for any coding LLM that isn’t trained entirely on one company’s own code and also offered by that company. That sort of LLM might be able to make the regurgitation argument work for them.)

Thus any project requiring “full responsibility” by submitters may as well just ban submitters from using LLM-based tooling. That’s the tack I’ve taken for my projects, and a number of large projects have taken that stance too.

(Before someone trots out “Technical enforcement of this is impossible!” be assured that such rules are not negated by a lack of technical enforcement; after all, there’s also no way to technically enforce that you didn’t copy someone else’s code and paste it in. But by thinking a lack of technical enforcement matters, you’re outing yourself as someone who will happily violate rules if they think they won’t get caught.)

[bayarearefugee]

> the solution I liked the best was the linux "developers take full responsibility" approach.

The people who can realistically submit a Linux patch that will ever get looked at is already a super select group through who-you-know network effects.

You can't apply the same system to random open source projects, the best option for people that run random small to medium sized open source projects is just to ban all unsolicited PRs, otherwise you're going to spend way too much effort sorting through the slop.

[pabs3]

I don't think that is true at all, I'm just a random FOSS dev with no connection to the Linux kernel community and I have gotten two small commits into the Linux kernel.