Seems like this policy would apply pretty well regardless of who/what generated the code.
Are we really in a situation where good code that solves a problem won't be merged because the person the person checked the "I used AI" box on the PR?
Ban PR's that are too big, don't have a clear purpose, touch too many areas, etc.
But this is exactly the point I'm making. If the code is carefully reviewed, targeted, and tested, then why make people have to lie in order to submit PRs?
Why not just say "Irresponsible use or agentic-based PR's will be auto-rejected"?
And that's not even mentioning that tools like Github Copilot can just act like fancy autocomplete. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of different ways to use these tools.
I guess I'm just really not sure how you can unequivocally forbid these insanely powerful tools when they are almost certainly going to be a large part of developer's workflows going forward?
For what it's worth, this is basically what the Godot policy does say. It's not a blanket ban:
> No autonomous AI agent use or vibe coding
> No use of AI to generate substantial pieces of code ... AI assistance should be limited to menial things (like code completion, regex, or find and replace).