"suspects".... that sounds error prone. And I read it like "we don't want AI generated stuff unless we can't tell the difference".
People are never entitled to their contributions getting accepted to someone else's code base.
The rule is general on purpose to allow the maintainer to freely remove whatever is very evident is just ai slop
Do you think sociopaths willing to lie about how they came up with a contribution are really that common?
Because AI is frowned upon where I work, I kept that under the radar. And I got nothing but praises for the good work, everybody loving it. Later I had the opportunity to port a piece of software from one language to another. LLMs are great for porting stuff when steered well. Again, nothing but praises for the amazing work done in a very short time. And this is where I tried to open a debate about AI by disclosing my tools and methods. And boom, suddenly I was evil. Praises gone. But still, none had the guts to throw the port to trash, because it's still very good. Hypocrisy.
So yes, call me sociopath if you like, but I will lie, produce better software and get the praises if I have to work in an environment that values tools and methods over results.
> So yes, call me sociopath if you like, but I will lie, > produce better software and get the praises if I > have to work in an environment that values tools > and methods over results.
You specifically said you would lie about how you work to get accolades if your employer attempted to set rules against working the way you prefer.
The appropriate reaction to your employer setting rules you don’t agree with is to try to convince them to change those rules, engage in a labor action alongside your coworkers to force them to change those rules, or to leave.
And that's what I do: nothing is more convincing than great results.
Get off your high horse maybe.