[RetroTechie]

> If you ask me, LLM-generated things should just be banned outright,

Why? In the end it's a patch's quality that counts. Regardless who or what contributed it.

Bad patch from trusted contributor is still a bad patch.

Perhaps this is more a management problem. How to best use developer's time, where to use AI (vs blindly deploy AI to generate patches & swamp developers with that).

Or do some rate-limiting? "Sorry, we accept no more than 10KB worth of patches per week on this project! Try again next week after we've reviewed this week's batch".

[bawolff]

> Why? In the end it's a patch's quality that counts.

LLM patches tend to be significantly harder to review. Mostly because LLMs let people who don't know what they are doing get much further.

It might be an unfair heurestic as there are plenty of competent people who use it to good effect, but the vast majority of negative value patches use LLMs and it can be a bit exhausting. Lowering the technical barriers of entry just means more pressure on the human ones.

[grayhatter]

> Why? In the end it's a patch's quality that counts. Regardless who or what contributed it.

You just said: The things that I think and care about matter more than the things that you care about.

is that what you meant?

Being honest, if we're talking about the health of any given project, the patch quality doesn't matter that much. Not when you measure it against the importance of consistency and continuity of a regular contributor. A thousand perfect LLM patches are less valuable than an experienced maintainer.

If your LLM is annoying them, and they quit. The perfect LLM patch just destroyed the repo.

People wasting others time is a social problem, not a technical one. Rate limits can't prevent somebody feeling disrespected.