Especially since I just don't see how it's possible to fully prevent people from using AI if they want to use it. Yes a lot of code might be more obvious and could be rejected with an "absolutely no AI policy" but some people will submit perfectly good code where AI was involved in some way.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes, that too.

Incentivizing hiding LLM use would be a problem. Encouraging disclosure is good.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Plus if the general requirement is 'high quality code' then that automatically excludes the majority of LLM usage where people just vibe code it and rely heavily on the LLM to do the work. VS someone writing their own code while using an LLM to help find problems.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well... IMO, there's a whole spectrum between "very rare LLM brianstorming/troubleshooting" and "I don't know how to code" vibe-coding, and Im not sure what the distribution looks like.

Personally, I get LLMs to generate boilerplate, formatting, and functions, but manually write plenty and audit/assemble all the pieces myself. But I would not call myself a vibecoder; I loathe vibe coding.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah I often tell a local LLM to find problems with my code before I submit it. It's essentially a round 0 reviewer, trained on previous (human) reviews of the same project.