I cannot in good conscience contribute to, or advocate for, a project that institutionally ranks otherwise acceptable contributors or their work in this way.
So, you're willing to change your (and your team's) contribution to a project based on your personal morals, and you are advocating changes to GHC's contribution policy based on your personal sense of morality as well.
I see you still have not understood the point I have been arguing all along. I can not in good conscience contribute, advocate or support a project that institutionalized discrimination. Whether that discrimination is based on gender, workflow, religion, language, skin colour, disabilities, intelligence, ... My whole argument is fundamentally about _any_ form of discrimination, and orthogonal to LLMs, although this particular discussion has centered around LLMs. I somehow doubt you are ok with discrimination. So, you're willing to change your (and your team's) contribution to a
project based on your personal morals, and you are advocating changes to GHC's contribution policy based on your personal sense of morality as well. Can you spare a bit of empathy for people who are concerned about, e.g. global warming or loss of drinking water due to LLMs
Yes, I can spare empathy, those are valid concerns. Again, discrimination does not fix this in my view. It does not move us closer to less LLM use, just because the GHC project prefers one workflow over another. The only way forward for that would be lobbying politics to prohibit the creation of Data Centers (in the context of LLMs). I don't see how "human written" (but you can use LLMs for research, ...) moves the needle here. Can you explain how the changes you have been arguing for address this issue?
(not to mention code quality)?
Have you read my emails? Where have I argued for lower code quality? Where have I argued for "slop slinging"? If anything I've repeatedly argued for higher quality and against poor drive-by contributions.