[OkWing99]

Do read the actual blog the bot has written. Feelings aside, the bot's reasoning is logical. The bot (allegedly) did a better performance improvement than the maintainer.

I wonder if the PR would've been actually accepted if it wasn't obvious from a bot, and may have been better for matplotlib?

[thephyber]

The replies in the Issue from the maintainers were clear. At some point in the future, they will probably accept PR submissions from LLMs, but the current policy is the way it is because of the reasons stated.

Honestly, they recognized the gravity of this first bot collision with their policy and they handled it well.

[lostmsu]

What policy are you referring to? Is there a document?

[oytis]

Bot is not a person.

Someone, who is a person, has decided to run an unsolicited experiment on other people's repos.

OR

Someone just pretends to do that for attention.

In either case a ban is justied.

[red75prime]

Yep, there's nothing wrong about walled gardens. They might risk to become walled museums, but it's their choice.

[lxgr]

Many open source contributions are unsolicited, which makes a clear contribution policy and code of conduct all the more important.

And given that, I think "must not use LLM assistance" will age significantly worse than an actually useful description of desirable and undesirable behavior (which might very reasonably include things like "must not make your bot's slop our core contributor's problem").

[revachol]

It doesn't address the maintainer's argument which is that the issue exists to attract new human contributors. It's not clear that attracting an OpenClawd instance as contributor would be as valuable. It might just be shut down in a few months.

> The bot (allegedly) did a better performance improvement than the maintainer.

But on a different issue. That comparison seems odd

[codeduck]

The ends almost never justify the means. The issue was intended for a human.

[RobotToaster]

Do the means justify the ends?