Most people don't get it, unless they've moderated online comms, but sometimes you do need to ban a certain topic even if it "technically" fits the community — because it's eclipsing everything else, reducing the diversity of content, and making the comm less fun for everyone. That's clearly the case here.

The comments sections are two shitfests, as typical for Reddit and Hacker News. I'll mix comments from both on purpose here, try to guess which is which before checking it.

[+216] Please don’t be a joke please don’t be a joke please don’t be a joke

The high score hints community sentiment towards this rule is extremely positive. (Okay, mentioning score is a sign of a Reddit comment. I know.)

Incredible! Llm has polluted so much of the content, blogs, talks, etc.
The one field where AI does actually make a significant difference, and you're banning discussion of it? Lol

Both missing the bloody point.

The fact that the people running r/progamming don't know not to wait until April 2 to publish this tells me that they don't have real-world experience in shipping software in a business environment.

Vomiting assumption + pretending nobody can do serious stuff in April 1st.

That em dash tells me this post was written by AI hmmmmm

Assumptive trash outing itself by claiming shit based on weak data: "em dash = LLM".

(This is the main reason I use em dashes so often nowadays, by the way — to pre-emptively detect and block this sort of assumer. If you're vomiting claims based on weak data or reasoning, I don't want to deal with you.)

Embarrassing to be a moderator of a programming subreddit and ban the most widely used programming tools. Literally luddites banning the discussion of compilers because you think code should only be written directly in machine language.

It's like two of the cases above combined: missing the point plus assuming "waah, luddite".

/r/horsecarriage bans all discussion of cars
/r/assembly bans all discussion of 4GL
LLM programming isn't going away by not talking about it. It's time to move on, and eventually considering farming.

Both examples are sensible bans: people discussing horse carriages don't want their space flooded with discussions about gasoline vs. ethanol!

The third line is what you get when an assumer misses the point, fails to read the OP, and starts lying / assuming / bullshitting why the rule popped up.