No, some projects take fundamental issues with AI, be it ethical, copyright related, or raising doubts over whether people even understand the code they're submitting and whether it'll be maintainable long term or even work.
There was some drama around that with GZDoom: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/10/civil-war-gzdoom-fan-... (although that was a particular messy case where the code broke things because the dev couldn't even test it and also straight up merged it; so probably governance problems in the project as well)
But the bottom line is that some projects will disallow AI on a principled basis and they don't care just about the quality of the code, rather that it was written by an actual person. Whether it's possible to just not care about that and sneak stuff in regardless (e.g. using autocomplete and so on, maybe vibe coding a prototype and then making it your own to some degree), or whether it's possible to use it as any other tool in development, that's another story.
Edit: to clarify my personal stance, I'm largely in the "code is code" camp - either it meets some standard, or it doesn't. It's a bit like with art - whether you prefer something with soul or mindless slop, unfortunately for some the reckoning is that the purse holders often really do not care.
These issues are no different for normal submissions.
You are responsible for taking ownership and having sorted out copyright. You may accidentally through prior knowledge write something identical to pre-existing code with pre-existing copyright. Or steal it straight off StackOverflow. Same for an LLM - at least Github Copilot has a feature to detect literal duplicates.
You are responsible for ensuring the code you submit makes sense and is maintainable, and the reviewer will question this. Many submit hand-written, unmaintainable garbage. This is not an LLM specific issue.
Ethics is another thing, but I don't agree with any proposed issues. Learning from the works of others is an extremely human thing, and I don't see a problem being created by the fact that the experience was contained in an intermediate box.
The real problem is that there are a lot of extremely lazy individuals thinking that they are now developers because they can make ChatGPT/Claude write them a PR, and throw a tantrum over how it's discriminating against them to disallow the work on the basis that they don't understand it.
That is: The problem is people, as it always has been. Not LLMs.
Now, is there hard evidence that AI use does lead to this in all cases? Not that I'm aware of. Just as there's no easy way to prove the difference between "I don't think this is impacting me, but it is" and "it really isn't".
It comes down to two unevidenced assertions - "this will reduce attentiveness" vs "no it won't". But I don't feel great about a project like this just going straight for "no it won't" as though that's something they feel with high confidence.
From where does that confidence come?
From decades of experience, quite honestly.
glad I don't work where you do!
it's actually even worse than that: the learning process to produce it doesn't care about correctness at all, not even slightly
the only thing that matters is producing plausible enough looking output to con the human into pressing "accept"
(can you see why people would be upset about feeding output generated by this process into a security critical piece of software?)
this statement is objectively false.
me too! what do I know?
(at least now we know where the push for this dreadful policy is coming from)
Followed by shortcuts
> As such, they are a net benefit and make KeePassXC strictly safer.
They can also waste author's/reviewer's time chasing imaginary ends, taking time away from the "regular" review, or with some level of trust add some plausibly explained vulnerability. Nothing is strict here
I'm sure if you ask your favorite AI bot, he'll come up with a few more reasons why the statement is overconfidently wrong.
Does not look like the original Keepass project is doing this which is the easiest migration away but I will check a bit deeper on their commits to be sure.
blibble•3h ago
I mean... they are
isn't that the point? not as if "AI" leads to higher quality is it
> Certain more esoteric concerns about AI code being somehow inherently inferior to “real code” are not based in reality.
if this was true why the need to point out "we're not vibe coding", and create this process around it?
fork and move on
droidmonkey•3h ago