Currently the top one has a nice kind of supervillain flair to it:
> Denying it is denying human nature, Mr. Bond, and the gods tend to punish the hubris of denying nature.
> Denying it is denying human nature, Mr. Bond, and the gods tend to punish the hubris of denying nature.
(and not, I'm not slyly trying to say LLMs are like guns, yeesh)
(Time will tell. It's possible this will turn out to be just one of the same old People that you've already met, with just some minor tweaks to the specific details...)
This lobsters comment on the topic intrigued me: https://lobste.rs/s/omq8rt/vibecoding_gets_emacs_patch_rejec...
You bet it's a personal attack.
So the real question is: what's LLVM policy?
tl;dr: Requirement is that a human must be in the loop; the contributor must have reviewed the change by hand already; and is always accountable; the human must be able to answer questions about the change, such as strategy chosen, corner cases, etc. etc.
Even with this very permissive and well considered policy, they get a lot of slop submissions. Huge amounts of pure trash. And the debate continues about what to do about it.
Some are in favor of forbidding it simply because it would reduce the amount of slop they have to wade through, and the 10% good prs done with AI don't outweigh the 90% pure junk prs. Reviewer time is way too scarce.
But it is just as controversial there as it is over on lwn.