Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

The rules I quoted say LLM code generation is allowed should the developer contact a reviewer first and they agree to review it.

My question was about the exact procedure and etiquette for contacting these reviewers. For example, Linux has a get_maintainer.pl people can use to figure out who to email should they want to contribute something.

There's a shameboard that curates a list of projects that don't explicitly and unconditionally ban all use of generative AI. Their term for projects that have a policy other than a total ban is "permissive" and it is treated as a sign to avoid that project/community. It's such a mess. Cancel culture is never the answer. I believe it is the right move to ban this completely unproductive and toxic kind of behavior.

> Experiment: LLM-created code changes intended for review

> We leave space open to experiment with LLMs to inform future policies.

> This experiment is meant to inform future non-experimental policy, not to serve as the perpetual LLM usage policy.

and rust just wants to ensure you are a capable pilot that can actually steer a plane before stealing everyone else's attention

Acceleration makes sense for end user applications, where you're allowed to break whatever you see fit, but I don't see how it helps with core infrastructure like a programming language, where every mistake is multiplied a million fold.

I've seen so many arguments (mainly from non-developers) claiming that anyone who uses an llm to generate code doesn't know how to program. They can't understand the difference between people using an LLM to blindly churn out code, and people developing with an LLM to generate the boring bits

Are you required to tell you used Anthropic™ (or whichever your AI provider of the month is) to generate this code, and not only that *an LLM* was involved?

"This looks like AI, closed". And you as a new IC with no connections, no community visibility have no recourse to fight back against it. Anti-ai people love boasting about humans > systems and forget about those humans that will surely be negatively affected by this, even if low number.

If you are a new programmer who is just learning and spend time creating a PR for a project you have a lot of respect for and the first interaction is someone falsely accuses you of using LLM's then closes your PR you've now removed someone who could have genuinely grown into your community from ever joining.

Not only that but since now you are by default a suspect of having used an LLM (and you need to prove you didn't use one) why even bother not using one? You are going to get accused of it either way.

Your assertion here is irrelevant to the poster's point.

You're focused on the "happy path:" everyone has perfect information and judges correctly. If the submitter used AI, they say so and the commenters on the PR agree. If the submitter did not use AI, they don't say they used AI, and the commenters on the PR agree. This is the diagonal elements on the "used AI" confusion matrix.

The commenter is pointing out that information and judgment are not perfect and they're concerned about the off-diagonal elements of the confusion matrix. Especially the "Didn't use AI, but some commenters believe that they did" element.

There is stigma surrounding LLM usage. There are consequences. Disclosing can lead to harassment and direct harm to one's reputation. I've been called "slop fetishist" and "clanker lover" before.

And later:

"There are very strict guidelines on LLM-generated code changes:

Pre-arranged, non-critical, high-quality, well-tested, and well-reviewed code changes that are originally created by an LLM are allowed, with disclosure."

That's a pretty limited wedge of allowed cases in my opinion.