critical point! I'd like to at least see the nature of the rejection spelled out in the policy.
Am I offending you personally by having used AI at all? Or is my contribution just running afoul of your technical judgement?
In order to get to "Is AI coding useful?" you need to personally work through "Is AI even acceptable?" - socially, environmentally, legally, biologically, militarily, technically, philosophically - I can absolutely respect those who say "hell no" to any of it!
- You can say "hell no" to contribution with any AI, due ethical concerns. Say it with your voice, not soft ban language. State your ethical objections.
- Much different to saying "hell no" to any AI contributions because of quality concerns; you know what's best for quality, security, bugs, etc.
- Much different still to saying "it depends" based on the nature of the contribution.
- Much different still to saying "yolo claude can commit to main".
They are all valid viewpoints. But deserve significantly different AI policies. Don't make me guess.
Am I offending you personally by having used AI at all? Or is my contribution just running afoul of your technical judgement?
In order to get to "Is AI coding useful?" you need to personally work through "Is AI even acceptable?" - socially, environmentally, legally, biologically, militarily, technically, philosophically - I can absolutely respect those who say "hell no" to any of it!
- You can say "hell no" to contribution with any AI, due ethical concerns. Say it with your voice, not soft ban language. State your ethical objections.
- Much different to saying "hell no" to any AI contributions because of quality concerns; you know what's best for quality, security, bugs, etc.
- Much different still to saying "it depends" based on the nature of the contribution.
- Much different still to saying "yolo claude can commit to main".
They are all valid viewpoints. But deserve significantly different AI policies. Don't make me guess.