experience

My definition, FWIW.

AI-friendly: you can use the LLMs however you wish, but you must thoroughly understand every part of submitted code.

Slop-friendly: understanding anything is optional.

[delayed]

Not the OP, but I wanted to share my 2 cents:

As an open source maintainer, when someone opens a PR, I don't know who they are. But I don't really care. I care about the PR: is it a "good" PR (there are multiple dimensions: is it understandable, does it add maintainable code, was it tested, etc) or not?

I think "AI-friendly" says "I don't care if it's written with an AI or not: I want good quality PRs".

I would think that "slop-friendly" is the kind of projects where the maintainers don't read the code. Maybe they try the feature (maybe not even?). I think the Omarchy guy was explaining somewhere that he does not read the code anymore, he just lets his AI write Rust. This is slop-friendly IMO.

If you are not AI-friendly, it means that you refuse to accept a good PR even if you cannot tell that an AI was involved. The mere fact that an AI was involved disqualifies the PR.

Are you one-shotting then reading/understanding? Then probably slop.

Are you iterating to help you understand, prompting to rename/restructure/document until you would have been able to easily understand without AI? Then probably not slop.

I'm pretty sure Asahi devs experiment with LLM tools, but not to Omarchy's extent. LLM ban is purely a filtration filter, so that they wouldn't be spending time overbearingly exhausting number of patches generated with AI, and not someone who cares about this than a shiny tool.

Everyone understands that LLM is a mean to an end, but it's clear that Omarchy got two confused and it's showing.

No, they’re pretty against AI in general.

Ai friendly patch: - Author posts patch with a manageable number of lines so maintainer doesn't gets burned out reviewing it. - Tries to outline on the body what the patch is about and his rationale for the design decisions on the code. - Promptly answers any maintaners questions about the line changes. - Discloses which AI model he used to assist on the patch and how was it used.

AI slop patch: - Submits patch with huge lines of code without explanation. - The body is written in a self-patronizing tone with superfluous formatting that helps nothing but annoys who is looking for the actual substance of patch - When questioned by maintainer about some line changes either goes radio silent or reply with the usual AI tone of marketin salesman. - rarely if ever discloses AI usage.

>* Discloses which AI model he used to assist on

I don't see why this is necessary ? Does it provide any useful info, or just noise.

It's just matter of ethics for me. You should be honest to the reviewer that you didn't write it entirely by yourself(100% your authorship) but a chunk of it was done by AI agents.

It reinforces trust.

If that's what you care, then why do they have to disclose the model they use ?