Which is why LLM PRs should just be issues (if there isn’t one already). Make the issue author a co-author on the PR. But let the maintainer actually oversee the LLM generated solution.

So basically you're saying you reject drive-by PRs.

My repos probably don't see as much traffic as SQLAlchemy though.

I think even amongst the HN and Linux userbase, pop_os is still niche, let alone amongst normies who never heard about Linux. So they can afford take the high road and treat it like their personal sandbox accepting only human written code.

But larger and more important projects like Fedora and Debian are more realistic and pragmatic with the fact that they'll have to accept AI written(but human reviewed) code, if they wish to keep up with the real world development and threats, as expressed by Linus Torvalds himself.

The thing is, the cat's out of the bag on this one now, especially in the fields of pen-testing and reverse-engineering. AI can brute-force its way into projects in ways that beat experienced researchers, so your only choice to keep up is to accept the use of AI generated fixes as a counter defense.

I think a PR "in flight" shouldn't have been closed like that.

All this will do is push out developers like you that honestly disclose, and instead people will now just lie.