This is in line with how a lot of large open source projects are dealing with it

• don't force people to use an AI tool
• don't be a jerk to people who choose to use a tool with AI
• you are responsible for how you interact with the project. If it wouldn't be ok if done by a human, its not ok if done by a bot

Using an LLM to review patches does that, which is why he was receptive to the Sashiko bot.

Funnily enough, I was just reading a post from a dev complaining about the review bot and how it makes developing patches harder.

Previously review comments were from somebody who had experience with the code or subsystem in question, who understood how the whole thing worked. The LLM bot has none of that and will spit out nonsensical comments that the developer now needs to try to understand and verify, so they still have to ping other developers to see if the LLM output makes sense.

Mmmmyeeaahhh, maybe, but I am a couple decades past trying to read the tea leaves with that guy. If that’s what he really meant, he could’ve come out and just said that – but he didn’t. He was intentionally ambiguous, mostly because I think he’s just tired of dealing with the issue (and an increasingly cunty crowd), and wanted to push the responsibility of making a decision off of himself and back onto the users. I will admit that he is far more composed than I would be in his position.

On one hand, I don’t blame him, but on another hand, I really wish he would’ve taken a stance (prefer preferably anti-AI).

He gave a professional response to a gigantic community because he has a professional responsibility to do so. Personally, I think he gave the only response he could. What does he personally think? Like I said, I’m a couple of decades past trying to read the tea leaves on that guy. But you could be right.