Comment by mexicocitinluez
1 day ago
YES! "No AI" policies that are purely based on technical grounds make no sense to me. Bad PR's are bad PR's regardless of their source.
Are we really in a situation where good code that solves a problem won't be merged because the person the person checked the "I used AI" box on the PR?
Ban PR's that are too big, don't have a clear purpose, touch too many areas, etc.
It's really a question of how much time you're willing to spend sorting through spam. "No AI" might be a blunt hammer, but the people submitting slop aren't reading guidelines anyway, and it's easier just to reject it early. Frankly, I'm sure if people wanted to sneak in an AI generated code by carefully reviewing it and making sure it's targeted and well tested... I'm sure they could, but those people aren't the problem.
> Frankly, I'm sure if people wanted to sneak in an AI generated code by carefully reviewing it and making sure it's targeted and well tested
But this is exactly the point I'm making. If the code is carefully reviewed, targeted, and tested, then why make people have to lie in order to submit PRs?
Why not just say "Irresponsible use or agentic-based PR's will be auto-rejected"?
And that's not even mentioning that tools like Github Copilot can just act like fancy autocomplete. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of different ways to use these tools.
I guess I'm just really not sure how you can unequivocally forbid these insanely powerful tools when they are almost certainly going to be a large part of developer's workflows going forward?