As a user, I think this is the biggest issue I have with this policy. Disclosure is a big part of open source and hiding whatever tools are used is fundamentally against that philosophy.

I feel like using ai is like using drugs, they're bad, but regulating them is muuuuuuuch better than just prohibiting, people will use it anyways.

It's not a one to one comparison but I feel encouraging witch hunts will definitely do more harm than normalizing it.

To be clear, I don't want it either, I'm acknowledging it's the lesser of two evils.

How would you even enforce it. Its possible to make extensive use of local LLMs and have them write no code at all that you submit. Is that use of AI? Should it be disclosed? If you did you would get puritans calling it slop regardless of the result too.

Having an public policy that permits the use of LLMs feels like the opposite of "hiding it". If a project has such a policy, then you can be pretty sure that LLMs are being used, even if you cannot tell exactly what commits involved the use of LLMs. It's probably also a lot more discoverable than disclosures in commits or PRs, which most users wouldn't know how to look for

Realistically, I think everything actively maintained is going to have some LLM code in it by now. You can either accept it or go mad, tbh.

Art is one thing, and I can see why we wouldn't want the computer doing that if you have the resources to employ people, but code is rarely art. Most of it was already slop. It's had things shoehorned into it by shouty managers decades ago. Claude is far from perfect, but so are most of the people doing the gruntwork.