@aburka To be fair, they aren't welcoming slop PRs. They are welcoming AI contributions, but the PRs are still at the discretion of the developers. So the developers bear the responsibility. This gives them an incentive to properly vet the AI contributions.

The main goal here was to increase transparency around AI use among the developers. I suspect many of them had already been using AI before the policy. Now they are obligated to report when and where they used it. It's impossible to completely ban AI use, so there was really no better anti-AI alternative than to increase transparency.

I personally don't like it, and I think it's a slippery slope. But I see it less as a "pro-AI" move and more as a "monitor AI use" move. I think other projects should adopt a similar policy.

@hyperreal actually, it's quite possible to completely ban AI usage. Here is a sample policy:

"AI generated contributions are not allowed in this project. Undisclosed usage of AI will result in a ban."

Fedora chose a different route, which I believe will prove to be a mistake.

What you are saying is that it's impossible to completely *prevent* AI-generated contributions, because even against a clear policy like I outlined above, people can lie. That is true. But I reject the conflation of *prevention* with *banning*. It's also impossible to completely prevent contributions that are plagiarized from other people, or contributions containing backdoors. But nobody would write a policy saying those things are allowed.

It's always a choice, and Fedora (and so many other projects) chose.