No you don’t. You can’t outsource trust determinations. Especially to the people you claim not to trust!
You make the judgement call by looking at the code and your known history of the contributor.
Nobody cares if contributors use an LLM or a magnetic needle to generate code. They care if bad code gets introduced or bad patches waste reviewers’ time.
Stop trying to equate LLM-generated code with indexing-based autocomplete. They’re not the same thing at all: LLM-generated code is equivalent to code copied off Stack Overflow, which is also something you’d better not be attempting to fraudulently pass off as your own work.
For example, you either make your contributors attest that their changes are original or that they have the right to contribute their changes—or you assume this of them and consider it implicit in their submission.
What you (probably) don’t do is welcome contributions that the contributors do not have the right to make.
Assuring you didn’t include any AGPLv3 code in your contribution is exactly the same kind of assurance. It also doesn’t provide any provenance.
Conflating assurance with provenance is bogus because the former is about making a representation that, if false, exposes the person making it to liability. For most situations that’s sufficient that provenance isn’t needed.
That’s exactly opposite of what the author is saying. He mentions that [if the code is not good, or you are a beginner] he will help you get to finish line, but if it’s LLM code, he shouldn’t be putting effort because there’s no human on the other side.
It makes sense to me.
That's the false equivalence right there
I think you just haven't gotten the hang of it yet, which is fine... the tooling is very immature and hard to get consistent results with. But this isn't a given. Some people do get good, steerable LLM coding setups.
LLMs are trained to be steerable at inference time via context/prompting. Fine tuning is also possible and often used. Both count as "feedback" in my book, and my point is that both can be effective at "changing the LLM" in terms of its behavior at inference time.
The person driving the LLM is a teachable human who can learn what's what's going on and learn to improve the code. It's simply not true that there's no person on the other side of the PR.
The idea that we should be comparing "teaching a human" to "teaching an LLM" is yet another instance of this false equivalence.
It's not inherently pointless to provide feedback on a PR with code written using an LLM, that feedback goes to the person using the LLM tools.
People are swallowing this b.s. marketing mystification of "LLMs as non human entities". But really they're fancy compilers that we have a lot to learn about.
IF they disclose what they've done, provided the prompts, etc. then other contributors can help them get better results from the tools. But the feedback is very different than the feedback you'd give a human that actually wrote the code in question, that latter feedback is unlikely to be of much value (and even less likely to persist).
I've done things like share a ChatGPT account with a junior dev to steer them toward better prompts, actually, and that had some merit.
The PR effectively ends up being an extremely high-latency conversation with an LLM, via another human who doesn't have the full context/understanding of the problem.