Post #2077607

2026-05-06 07:35 UTC

🔗 Another reason to disallow LLM contributions in open source projects would be that it gets in the way of the project nurturing “new, confident, trustworthy contributors“, says (even) Simon Willison https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/30/zig-anti-ai/ (via @xgranade)

Replies (3)

@rose@berlin.social 2026-05-06 07:51

@hdv@front-end.social @xgranade@wandering.shop "Confident", though? Hmm! It feels like there's a bigger issue with the overconfidence of those reliant on LLMs...!

Open ##2605076
@Vash@mstdn.games 2026-05-06 08:40

@hdv@front-end.social Not sure if the generalization of how I interpret 'contribution' is correct. It does not explicitly ban AI for coding, but for creating automated issues or PRs, right? AI assistance as I would expect it is still that every line and concept is reviewed and understood by a human, independent from whether it was typed by AI or not. Disallowing issues/PRs but not code per se implies this. But I may be wrong if the PR is defined by its code in a more strict sense. I am not into developing open source so sorry if asking something obvious. @xgranade@wandering.shop

Open ##2605077
@depressiveRobot@gruene.social 2026-05-06 11:18

@hdv@front-end.social @xgranade@wandering.shop THIS: „if a PR was mostly written by an LLM, why should a project maintainer spend time reviewing and discussing that PR as opposed to firing up their own LLM to solve the same problem?“ I don't want to be the reviewer of someone else's LLM prompt output!

Open ##2605079