[WCSTombs]

So...big caveat that this is still under review, so what we're talking about is a moving target, but based on what I can see, it seems considerably more nuanced than that. They basically ban LLM-authored code, with a careful carve-out to run an experiment to try to get only high-quality LLM PRs:

> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.

> We carve out a space for "experimentation" to inform future revisions to this policy.

Importantly, the LLM contributions must be solicited, i.e., the people responsible for reviewing the final implementation have to opt in explicitly beforehand.

[staticassertion]

I think that the only significant caveat here is the need for reviewers to opt in, otherwise it's effectively "you can do it if you are open about it and are responsible for the output". The only notable ask here that's different from other policies is "if it's an LLM, tell reviewers beforehand".

TBH I think that makes no sense ("I have an LLM written PR ready, can I open it?") but yeah the policy is also in draft and has actually already changed since my first comment.