Post

The Zig project's rationale for their blanket ban on AI-assisted contributions makes a lot of sense to me - for them, time spent reviewing PRs isn't about the code, it's about growing new contributors for the future of the project simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/30/...

I particularly appreciate how this rationale isn't based on the idea that LLM code is of poor quality compared to code written by hand - the quality of the code isn't the deciding factor at all here

I don't see this solution as a long term one, even though I respect the goals. There are great developers now with great ideas expressed through an AI mechanism. There will be more and more. We'll have to evolve the mutual human respect and community piece as we go, including AI.

I guess I don't see the natural way to draw hard lines, or why. Why is a PR specifically sacred? There's definitely something human and community-oriented we want to preserve. The common purpose of open source dev or many endeavors is intrinsically human. How to retain that is the question.

The main difference with a PR is that it represents a significant ask on the time of the maintainers Responding to a suggestion that has an attached proof-of-concept is massively less time consuming than meticulously reviewing, providing feedback on, merging and then maintaining a PR