Comment by SuperV1234

> i will reject any contribution that i do not understand

Fair.

> that developer will have to earn my trust like anyone else

What does it take to "earn your trust"?

> LLM contributions are non-deterministic, which means they can never be trusted.

Provably incorrect. LLM contributions can be reviewed, tested, and understood like any other contribution. There's nothing "special" about LLM contributions.

Contributions authored by human brains are also non-deterministic, perhaps if the author was feeling in a slightly different way they'd have formatted the code a bit differently.

> therefore, if you use LLM to contribute, you can not earn my trust.

The premise is wrong.

> if you believe that you can not create a meaningful contribution without the use of LLM then you are realizing that you are not skilled enough to understand the code that you contribute

What if I believe I can do so without an LLM, but that it could be even better with an LLM?

What if I'm great at understanding code, but terrible at writing it?

Again, this is a premise that you just decided to take as truth, without proof.

> because if you could understand it, then you could write it yourself.

False. I can understand a novel algorithm by reading and studying it, but perhaps I could have not come up with it myself.

> i want you to earn my trust by showing me that you understand what you are doing

I can easily do that even if my contribution involves LLM assistance.

> i want you to grow your understanding of my project

Ditto.

> none of this happens when you use LLMs

False. Why do you think so?

> if you are unable to make a contribution without the help of an LLM then you are not ready to contribute.

Again, this is your opinion and you have no way of proving it. I can prove the opposite.