Rule should be anti-fully-autonomous-PRs. (LLMs dont push bad code. People use LLMs to push bad code and DDoS the maintainers mental bandwidth)

Presumably this only applies to newcomers? The thrust of their policy is to nurture new contributors. Once one has established oneself as a meaningful contributor — which the Bun team surely must have done by now — then it doesn’t matter where the code came from.

…in theory. In reality, I’m sure a policy like this can’t be selective and fair at the same time. Pick one!

> If a PR was mostly written by an LLM, why should a project maintainer spend time reviewing and discussing that PR as opposed to firing up their own LLM to solve the same problem?

That's a fair thing to ask, though it seems like people will arrive at very different conclusions there.

The other side of this is that open source projects that allow AI tools will be more restrictive towards new contributors.

This already happens to some degree on large software projects with corporate backing (Web engines, compilers, etc.), where it is often not trivial to start contributing as an independent individual.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether one approach is inherently better than the other, as ultimately they seem to be optimising for different goals.

How about intellectual-property risks?

One reason I love writing production code in Ur/Web is that LLMs are incapable of synthesising something even remotely resembling it. Keeps me on my toes.

I think this is a great policy by the Zig team.

Honestly, that doesn't sound too bad. It does not say you can't use LLMs, it just doesn't let LLMs be the author of a commit. Meaning, if you as a developer make yourself responsible for what the LLM wrote, go ahead. But be ready to answer the technical questions, be ready to get grilled in the code review, and be called if you get a CVE on that part of the code...

People shouldn't have to justify not putting up with bullshit. It is a sensible default.