I’m not so sure I agree - that an AI tool found a thing that no one else had found at the time doesn’t make it a win for the LLVM community - if the developer time could’ve been spent on something else, then it’s a question of opportunity cost: Was this better than the other thing they could’ve been working on? And if not better, how much worse?
Yeah, working with newcomers is going to be, in the immediate sense net-negative - but the hope is that some number of these newcomers become more involved in the project and may eventually become maintainers or at least valuable/net positive contributors. This is vital for the health of the project long term.
But if folks spend their limited bandwidth fostering AI contributions that are less likely to result in net positive contributors - we’re harming the long-term sustainability of the project. Those folks burn out and their efforts will have not been as effective at fostering an ongoing life for the project.
[my take: I think a “no AI slop” rule seems like a good start - if a bit of a judgmental term for it (some of the people creating some of it, I understand, do care about the contributions - but aren’t familiar with the concepts, etc). If the contributor is interested in learning, there’s some hope there - though even then, even if there was no AI involved, sometimes we don’t have the bandwidth to teach someone enough to be an effective contributor - there’s a lot to learn in this space & our time is limited.
Honesty seems fine, ask people to explain if they’re unsure about things, how things were generated (my first contributions to LLVM were tool assisted - sed over the codebase for the de-constification of llvm::Type - but we explain how we make those changes, include the commands in the review, etc) - and if someone doesn’t say it, maybe we get the impression it might’ve been tool assisted and ask - and expect honest answers. If people are lying about everything… there aren’t really any rules that are going to help us there anyway - other than using our best judgment to ascertain and respond to that.]