@dalias
I think the point is that you can do that without shunning people, i.e., you can say politely that certain types of contributions are not welcome without outright banning people at the first indication they might have the audacity of even suggesting something.
@conservancy

@dalias
(To be clear, I'm not saying you are doing that. However, I have seen people do that, and don't think it is useful. Tell people who do suggest LLM use that what they're suggesting is a bad idea, sure. But don't shun them at first sight. Maybe at second sight)
@conservancy

@mirabilos
Totally different story. I'm not opposed to banning such people. In my reading, that's also not what SFC is suggesting.
@dalias @conservancy

@dalias
Maybe that's not what it means to you, but that's how I read it.

I'm happy to learn you see it that way, and assume you practice what you preach.

However, I have seen people shun right away on first sight of even daring to mention the concept of AI. I don't think that's useful, and I understood that guideline to mean that you shouldn't do that.

If it doesn't then I agree with you that it's not helpful. But I don't think that's the case.
@conservancy

@dalias
Any community can do anything they like. Some things will not make said community healthy, but that's their problem.

Anyone arguing they should be allowed to do something because conservancy said so is just trolling, and is clearly only selectively reading things. Ban that on first sight, sure.

At a technical level, LLM tech can seem like magic. It's easy to see only that and think it's a panacea without @conservancy

understanding the problems. Someone suggesting LLM use might not be aware, and *personally* I would rather try to educate them before banning.

But you do you. I don't pay you, I'm not your boss, and I won't think less of you (if you care about that, which you probably don't and that's fine) if you do ban at first sight.

🤷
@conservancy @dalias