I'm wondering if you foresee remaining open to new contributors or focusing on a trusted set of like minded contributors? How much time are you willing to spend enforcing this policy? (To put my cards on the table I think it's good for projects to pursue different and incompatible agendas and if you are volunteering to conduct this experiment I think that is great and genuinely wish you the best, I'm just wondering whether this will become a tarpit that either soaks up all of your time or makes onboarding new contributors take an inordinate amount of time.)

> I'm just wondering whether this will become a tarpit that either soaks up all of your time or makes onboarding new contributors take an inordinate amount of time.

In an ideal world, LLM users would simply steer clear of trying to contribute instead of trying to hide it and direct their energy and tokens elsewhere

I agree the onus should be on people not to create a nuisance but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. Descriptively, normatively I agree that people ought to be considerate and reasonable.

I think normal people would, couple projects I needed features added/bugs fixed and checked first if there were ai rules, there was, so instead of opening a pr just forked fixed and use my fork now. Not a big deal.

I agree with what you've shared here, regarding personal choice etc. Can you say more about "No LLMs for finding bugs." What are some downsides that you've experienced or are protecting against?

Untriaged "bugs" that are based on implausible threat models.

LLMs puke these out.

It's extractive because a human has to triage them.

I really appreciate the thoughtful message of "these two coding styles are simply incompatible, and as the lead maintainer I'm using the non-LLM style". No hate or hard feelings for those that prefer the alternative.

I really wish a lot more of this debate could show that level of respect for the other side.

> thoughtful message

The author's tone here is very mature and measured. But the policy is not, and it doesn't seem particularly thoughtful, either. The Code of Conduct says that even using an LLM to explore a problem or idea, and then typing up a comment about your thoughts after doing so is "unwelcome". So it's not dictating where code comes from, or just code and prose, it's dictating how you process your own thoughts and ideas if you want to engage with the project.

So you are completely open minded about any form of expression in the known universe and do not under any circumstances tolerate harassment, discrimination or exclusion…unless it involves AI/LLMs. Got it.

Expression is as much about what is excluded as what is included. They've made it clear they aren't making a prescription for other people's projects. I don't see any reason to interpret this as an attack on other's expression rather than simply their own expression.

Playing the victim card is certainly a choice

Do you perform arbitrary ethical purity tests for other types of contributions? Or just this one solitary rule because the media is talking about it?