You were asking if @unkempt6057 were suggesting to interrogate contributors, and express that doing so would not reduce the zig teams burdens, or perhaps increase it.
I agree with that, but thought that was a leap from what they said. Ofc I can’t speak to what they meant.
I was replying to @unkempt6057 when saying it was getting away from the point. You did bring it back with your comment.
What part of that is misunderstood? (Genuinely)
If you believe that contributions should be gated by a set of rules as opposed to some notion of “shared values” then we agree. And if @unkempt6057 wasn’t implying the latter then I simply misinterpreted them.
Oh no, I’m not suggesting anything, let alone interrogating or auditing any potential contributor. Sorry, I didn’t communicate my point well.
Loris’s post is about how they want to prioritize which new contributors they invest their time and attention into. He talks about how the blanket AI ban automatically filters a lot of new contributors for them and why they are okay with paying the opportunity cost of missing out on potential “valid contributors that make use of LLMs”. AKA the “seasoned developers that make responsible use of AI tools”.
The point I was trying to make: For the Zig team, losing out on these contributors probably isn’t too concerning, since their values and the values of these “valid LLM-using contributors” are probably not that aligned.
I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but my guess is that they want people who DON’T want to use AI (or are at least, totally content to not use it for their work on this project). So the fact that there’s still a ban on AI use, regardless of trust level, is kind of a feature, not a bug.