As shared by on Simon Willison’s blog, Zig has an interesting anti-LLM policy for contributions in their code of conduct.
Zig values contributors over their contributions. Each contributor represents an investment by the Zig core team - the primary goal of reviewing and accepting PRs isn’t to land new code, it’s to help grow new contributors who can become trusted and prolific over time.
I don’t think an anti-LLM policy makes sense for most projects. But a programming language requires considerate intent and deep knowledge for changes. It’s an interesting fit there.
In addition:
If a PR was mostly written by an LLM, why should a project maintainer spend time reviewing and discussing that PR as opposed to firing up their own LLM to solve the same problem? We’ve historically preferred PR contributions over issues, because it puts the contributor in the position to do most of the work. But if a PR is just a contributor prompting an LLM, is a well-written issue preferable? When writing code becomes cheaper, might as well let the maintainer get it done using their taste.