Fingers crossed Gnome follows suit! :)
I gotta admit KDE’s stance on this frustrates me a lot.
On the flip side… I am also fully aware that policies of prohibition, in the broadest sense, tend to not be terribly successful, and I wouldn’t be shocked if some contributors simply excise the “co-authored by <agent-name>” from the commit messages with a simple pre-push hook or something like that on projects that explicitly prohibit LLM/codegen usage.
IMO one of the major problems with LLm code generation is that it has the capacity to overwhelm human capacity to review code and properly understand the codebase.
From that perspective, a prohibitive policy doesn’t have to be 100% effective to be useful, it just needs to slow things down enough to keep the manageable and maintainable (and fun to work on).
Some people will absolutely lie, but I suspect most contributors will respect the rules, and ultimately cut down on AI PRs overall, as those AI contributors switch to projects who are pro-AI.
Or you tell it not to commit but to suggest the commit message
Now if only it wasn’t a buggy mess all on its own.
it’s impossible to tell whether or not AI was used. they should just ensure authors understand what was submitted and can take responsibility for / stand behind it
Loving my move to Fedora Atomic Cosmic. Happy Silverblue user of long time, Cosmic just fits my personal zen better.
With their fast pace of fixes/new features, this AI stance is just the nice cherry on top.
