iirc their goal is not to have a perfectly enforceable policy, it’s to cultivate a culture around the language that is fully in favor of human contributors instead of ai. to let people learn and improve as they contribute, instead of simply merging code that looks good enough; they call it contributor poker

[–] Get_Off_My_WLAN@fedia.io 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It might not be enforceable, but why would they want to contribute to something that's very against what they use? Out of spite?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

Same reason as before this policy: they care about the project itself.

If you don't view these tools as the devil, of course you might roll your eyes and say, that's nice, anyway, here's an improvement.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 hours ago

Like all of this ranges from unenforceable to spuriously enforceable (eg for rule 1, you can guess whether something has AI vibes—with vibe code it might be easier if the AI has just hallucinated a function or something). Seems more for the purpose of making a point than anything, or perhaps relying on others respecting your policy, but other projects with much more lenient no-AI policies still have people flagrantly breaking them.