As far as I can tell, the projects and orgs that institute decisive, clearcut policies against generative AI contributions never receive anywhere near as much blowback or debate as those that try to stake some nuanced middle position.
3 Boosts
0 Likes
"Middle ground" policies on genAI lead to blowups for a simple, logical reason.
"No AI" is a clear policy meaning "keep working how we did before."
"Anything goes" is a clear policy meaning "no one gets held responsible."
Anything else will be some variation on "AI accepted, but must be checked." Which is more work. The AI users won't be satisfied because avoiding work was the whole point. And non-users won't be satisfied because now they're responsible for making sure that work gets done.
Idk, maybe lots of former contributers are taking their ball and going home when those projects say "no ai." But I haven't seen any projects fold or lament the loss of supporters after instituting a hard and fast "no ai" policy. And I HAVE seen plenty of projects and orgs nearly grinding to a halt under a deluge of slop submissions.
My point being: Your policy can be just "NO." That seems to be the most workable policy.