As much as I don’t like the whole AI trend, it is a way to learn and optimize the routine tasks. The full ban due to quality concerns may not be the right thing. A new contributor completely not familiar with the project and without a lot of experience in the industry (say an intern) will also likely not produce a PR with a great quality. Do we ban interns too so they never get any experience due to quality concerns?
2- In my experience, folks using AI do a much worse job at understanding their patch, and thus a much worse job at getting better over time. The amount of effort to make these contributors start making better contributions is so much more as to not be worth it anymore.
4- Thanks in part to 2, and worse, folks using AI to generate responses to me, they are much worse at asking productive followups/pushbacks.
I think such a thing is already violating the current developer policy. According to LLVM Developer Policy — LLVM 22.0.0git documentation
contributors are considered responsible for their contributions. We encourage contributors to review all generated code before sending it for review to verify its correctness and to understand it so that they can answer questions during code review. Reviewing and maintaining generated code that the original contributor does not understand is not a good use of limited project resources.
It may make sense to explicitly state that answering review questions with an AI tool is not allowed. The patch is a responsibility of the author, not the AI tool.
Anyway, what is the line for something considered to be AI generated? Is brace auto-completion banned in this state? What about Visual Studio’s intellicode which suggests a few lines to complete common patterns? What about experience developers who are leveraging AI to shorten the routine tasks?
+1 to that.
I think the problem we have is people ignoring the current policy, not the AI usage itself.