Thanks Andrew, I really like how you spell out the reasoning around it, I will see how we can incorporate some of those ideas
On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 at 09:23, Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have had repeated attempts at contributions by some folks who simply > do not understand their generated code and when asked for clarification, > have the LLM generate more incorrect commentary. It's very Dunning-Krueger > and leads to lots of frustration all around. > > We saw this too in DataFusion and I was pleased with what we came up with > for rationale about why it is not helpful[1]. Basically the reviewers are > more efficient using the LLM tools directly and the contributor isn't > learning anything either. > > Andrew > > > [1]: > > https://datafusion.apache.org/contributor-guide/index.html#why-fully-ai-generated-prs-without-understanding-are-not-helpful > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 12:48 PM R Tyler Croy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (replies inline) > > > > On Sunday, January 18th, 2026 at 7:43 PM, Gang Wu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > - Summitters should review all lines of generated code before creating > > the > > > PR to > > > understand every piece of detail just like they are written by the > > > submitters > > > themselves. > > > - AI tools are notorious for generating overly verbose comments, > > unnecessary > > > test cases, fixing test failures using wrong approaches, etc. Make sure > > > these > > > are checked and fixed. > > > - Reviewers are humans, so please try to break down large PRs into > > smaller > > > ones to make reviewers' life easier to get PRs promptly reviewed. > > > > > > Like others I think Nic's draft is a good one, I would like to offer some > > thoughts as a maintainer (delta-rs) which has received increased > > AI-assisted pull requests over the past six months. > > > > > > The "PR may be closed without further review" statement I would strongly > > encourage moving to the very beginning of the policy. I would also > > encourage labels being used like "ai-assisted" to signal to other > > contributors who may or may not wish to engage in reviewing potential > slop. > > > > We have had repeated attempts at contributions by some folks who simply > do > > not understand their generated code and when asked for clarification, > have > > the LLM generate more incorrect commentary. It's very Dunning-Krueger > and > > leads to lots of frustration all around. > > > > Like most policies it's important to speak to those that are acting in > > good faith but don't rely on everybody following the rules, and come up > > with an agreed upon way to handle those that don't. > > > > > > Either way I think it's good to ship! :) > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > >
