@neil take your point on contrived. My experience is that the credibility of these things live and die with the edge cases. Today's hypothetical is tomorrow's case study etc. etc.

We will discover and figure this out over time, I'm sure of it!

@neil I agree with that framing.

The provenance thing provokes the same question for me about where the line is though.

A hidden actor that writes the code directly that I claim? Probably against the policy.

Someone/thing that coaches me through writing the code? Someone who writes a blog/book that inspires me to create the code? Less clear.

What about a machine that takes the voice output of someone unable to type and turns that into code? Is that acceptable?

I don't think "no LLMs / no AI" is anything like precise enough to be useful. It's a good statement of principle, but a wholly inneffective policy imo. I have no good answer or suggestion though

@neil appreciate your thoughtfulness on this, even if I don't necessarily entirely share your values.

My issue with this whole thing comes down to detectability and trust. If I point at a git commit, authored by me, and I pinky swear I didn't use an LLM to write, design, or coach me through any part of it, is that sufficient to meet a project's "no AI" policy?