Post #3382718

2026-06-23 15:57 UTC

Open source projects will tell you they have no choice but to allow slop, because doing anything else is a form of gatekeeping that will exclude too many potential contributors. Nothing could be further than the truth, though. When the review queue is a non-stop machine gun of giant, bogus drive-by patches, the good contributions will inevitably fall through the cracks. Eventually, the contributors you actually want—those who care about the long-term health of the code base, building institutional knowledge, improving their craft, mentorship—will simply leave, because they will realize their limited time and energy is better spent elsewhere. A blanket ban on LLM contributions is not impractical, idealistic, or too radical—it's just common sense.

Replies (5)

@andnull@social.nouveau.community 2026-06-23 16:01

@slava@mathstodon.xyz Will recommend when it goes into effect a solid week break from all social media channels after cleaning up shop.

Open ##3588900
@gaditb@icosahedron.website 2026-06-23 16:22

@slava@mathstodon.xyz "A blanket ban on LLM contributions in unenforcible, it's completely unverifiable in the general case and unmanageable without largely trusting people!--" Yeah we have those types of rules already they're called "community norms" and they work pretty well actually.

Open ##3588902
@hgrsd@hachyderm.io 2026-06-23 16:44

@slava@mathstodon.xyz You're probably aware of this, but this is what Zig did (see https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy). Loris Cro wrote an article about some of their reasons: https://kristoff.it/blog/contributor-poker-and-ai/.

Open ##3588904
@d1@autistics.life 2026-06-23 17:22

@slava@mathstodon.xyz I agree. It's all in the "Signal to Noise ratio"

Open ##3608152
@jackdaniel@functional.cafe 2026-06-23 17:43

@slava@mathstodon.xyz thank you for saying that. in the current onslaught of llm propaganda it is comforting to know that there are like minded people out there.

Open ##3608153