The GNOME.org Extensions hosting for GNOME Shell extensions will no longer accept new contributions with AI-generated code. A new rule has been added to their review guidelines to forbid AI-generated code.
Due to the growing number of GNOME Shell extensions looking to appear on extensions.gnome.org that were generated using AI, it’s now prohibited. The new rule in their guidelines note that AI-generated code will be explicitly rejected
you shouldn’t be able to tell if someone used ai to write something. if you can then it is bad code. they’re not talking about getting completion on a fn, they’re talking about letting an agent go and write chunks of the project.
So then the policy doesn’t make sense and should focus on what specific issues are associated with llm-generated code that are problematic. For example, I’ve seen llms generate fairly unreadable loops because it uses weird variable names. That’s a valid offense to criticize.
However I’ve also read C code before so I’ve seen an obscene amount of human generated code with shitty variable names that don’t mean anything. So why is the shitty human C code ok but shitty LLM code is not? And if no shitty code is accepted (it’s gnome so I doubt that), then why does anyone need a new rule?
i’d love to review some of the code that you personally wrote.
That’s cool, but why? I tend to use longer variable names that are mostly self-explanatory because, well, intellisense exists so I don’t really need to make them short.
did you read their statement? they do.
Yes, it says there was an unnecessary try/catch, that’s pretty weak if that’s the only reason.
read their text again, the problem is that people submit code that they don’t understand. and this will grow the more people decide to stay stupid / employ LLMs.
Well that’s an assertion they are claiming, maybe. I see people on lemmy claim that all of the time about people who use LLM tools but thinking a thing doesn’t make it fact.
Edit: I just reread the blog and actually see zero mention of that claim. So I’m not sure where you’re reading that I’m not seeing.