zlacker

Everything except the first provision is reasonable. IMO it's none of your damn business how I wrote the code, only that I understand it, and am responsible for it.

It's one of those provisions that seem reasonable, but really have no justification. It's an attempt to allow something, while extracting a cost. If I am responsible for my code, and am considered the author in the PR, than you as the recipient don't have a greater interest to know than my own personal preference not to disclose. There's never been any other requirement to disclose anything of this nature before. We don't require engineers to attest to the operating system or the licensing of the tools they use, so materially outside your own purant interests, how does it matter?

>>ottah+(OP)
Maintenance, for one. I imagine contributions that are 100% AI generated are more likely to have a higher maintenance burden and lower follow-up participation from the author in case fixes are needed.

>>ottah+(OP)
It's a signal vs noise filter, because today, AI can make more mistakes. Your operating system or IDE cannot lead you to make a similar level or amount of mistakes while writing code.

It is of course your responsibility, but the maintainer may also want to change their review approach when dealing with AI generated code. And currently, as the AI Usage Policy also states, because of bad actors sending pull requests without reviewing or taking the responsibility themselves, this acts as a filter to separate your PR which you have taken the responsibility for.