Yeah, AI enthusiastic coders are out there and you can't just pretend that nobody is ever going to submit AI generated code and try to pass it off as their own. This seems to be a pretty reasonable way of ensuring that there's accountability and hopefully disclosure.

Obviously I'd prefer that nobody submits vibe code but good luck stopping them all.

I think having a policy that forces disclose of LLM code is important. It's also important to solidify that AI code should only ever be allowed to exist in userland/ring 3. If you can't hold the author accountable, the code should not have any permissions or be packaged with the OS.

I can maybe see using an LLM for basic triaging of issues, but I also fear that adding that system will lead to people placing more trust in it than they should have.

the code is going to be held to the same standards as always, so it's not like they're going to be blindly adding slop

But you think it's okay that the reviewers should waste their time reviewing slop?

I've had to spend so much time the last few months reviewing and refactoring garbage code, all because corporate whitelisted some LLMs. This group I've worked with for many years used to be really competent developers, but they've all become blind. It's a tragedy.

how would you know the difference?

Maybe you can't, but it's very obvious in many cases.

seems sensible.

The AI hate crowd are getting increasingly nonsensical, I see it as any other software, if it's more open that's the best.