> > The problem is that a lot of AI contributions are lazily produced without review.That sounds like a contributor problem. Not an AI problem.
Ish. The tool is not doing the job fully, the contributor is not doing their task properly, checking for that, and fixing the issues.
> I still don't understand a "no AI" policy whose only purpose is to weed out bad PRs. You should be weeding out bad PR's regardless of their source.
Think of it like offering a job, and getting 100s of CVs. You don't have time to review each in detail, so you weed out a chunk of them using superficial cues that have been indicators of issues in the past. They are filtering the other contributions too, the no AI rule is just part initial triage to save a lot of time.
You have missed a key point in what I wrote: "Those that have been properly reviewed for correctness [before being submitted] will be indiscernible from human-only contributions". It is like a Turing test: if you take the effort to make your AI aided contributions good enough to be indiscernible from good human-only contributions then the no-AI filter won't bother you because the people or automations enforcing it won't be able to discern that your contribution was assisted.
> where good code can't be submitted unless the submitter lies.
No. Unless it looks like a good contribution looks.
The problem a lot of projects are facing right now is being inundated by bad PRs from people using AI without the effort to, or likely the knowledge of how to, properly understand and explain & document the change. People have a limited amount of time and if the filter saves a lot of time then maybe losing one or two good contributions due to the filter is worth it - better that than the project stalling under the weight of managing all the PRs.
This is one of the reasons, even pre-AI, some projects declared themselves "open source but not open contribution".