True. At least with a policy about it, the project maintainers can unilaterally close such PRs without further internal or external discussion on any case-by-case basis.

Or LLMs, as we have seen.

These days large PRs are easy to create and so humans need to shut them down.

Or, put more bluntly, your belief in what people ought to feel entitled to has no bearing on what they do believe, and policy needs to address the latter, not the former.

Though the most important aspect is that we need to know the motivation and thought process, and all AI can do is fabricate a 'plausible' one.

"And the Lord spake, saying, ''First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'

... then flooded maintainers would be doing it.

It was a constant struggle to get them to be concise, one I mostly lost.

The policy allows the reviewer to reject it on the "AI" grounds.

… but still unfortunately leaves reviewers having to spend time checking submissions and rejecting them.

* new contributor?

* more than 10 files affected (higher count are more valid)?

* wall of text on description without screenshots, etc?

just close the PR as AI, and then the contributor can challenge it if they feel it should not.

“Mission. Fucking. Accomplished.”

https://xkcd.com/810/

We just recently started that policy so we'll see how it goes. If anything, having it stated as policy lets us filter out these requests without spending brain tokens on them.