AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”

It does matter how and where a PR comes from, because reviewers are fallible and finite, so trust enters the equation inevitably. You must ask "Do I trust where this came from?" And to answer that, you need to know where it come from.

If trust didn't matter, there wouldn't have been a need for the Linux Kernel team to ban the University of Minnesota for attempting to intentionally smuggle bugs through the PR process as part of an unauthorized social experiment. As it stands, if you / your PRs can't be trusted, they should not even be admitted to the review process.

The sheer amount of entitlement on display by very pro-AI people genuinely boggles the mind.

They genuinely believe their use of chatbots is equivalent to multiple years of production experience in a language. They want to erase that distinction (“democratize”) so they can have the same privileges and status without the work.

Otherwise, what’s the harm in saying AI guides you to the solution if you can attest to it being a good solution?

I guess it's just different kinds of people. I have used Copilot to generate code I barely understand (stuff for a microcontroller project, nothing important) but I wouldn't in a thousand years say I wrote it. I broadly understand how it works, and like, if someone wanted to see it, I'd show them. But like... how can you take pride in something you didn't make?

Not making the thing is a point in favor of LLMs for some of these people I suspect. So the pride in work thing is just not high on the list of incentives.

I don’t get it at all. Feels like modernity is often times just inventing pale shadows of things with more addictive hooks to induce needlessly dependent behavior.