therefore, if you use LLM to contribute, you can not earn my trust

>because if you could understand it, then you could write it yourself. I accept most things you said there as valid opinions, but this is where the logic goes wrong. I use LLMs to give me more from the only resource (now that my basic and mid-level needs are largely met) that ultimately matters: time. That means that I need to waste far less time in front of the computer, typing code, and use far more time doing more useful things, like hobbies, art, being with my children. But as I said before, every project is obviously allowed to make their own rules, and contributors should obey those rules. There are plenty of projects that take both AI deniers and plenty of projects who prefer AI aficiandos. At least for now. My belief is that one those groups will fade away like horseback riding did, but we'll see. Perhaps you have heard the famous stages quoted by many different people in differe…

> i will reject any contribution that i do not understand Fair. > that developer will have to earn my trust like anyone else What does it take to "earn your trust"? > LLM contributions are non-deterministic, which means they can never be trusted. Provably incorrect. LLM contributions can be reviewed, tested, and understood like any other contribution. There's nothing "special" about LLM contributions. Contributions authored by human brains are also non-deterministic, perhaps if the author was feeling in a slightly different way they'd have formatted the code a bit differently. > therefore, if you use LLM to contribute, you can not earn my trust. The premise is wrong. > if you believe that you can not create a meaningful contribution without the use of LLM then you are realizing that you are not skilled enough to understand the code that you contribute What if I believe I can do so withou…