Many GNOME projects have adopted a policy banning all contributions generated by LLMs . This policy was originally developed by Sophie for Loupe, but is now used in many other notable places:

This project does not allow contributions generated by large languages models (LLMs) and chatbots. This ban includes, but is not limited to, tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, and Devin AI. We are taking these steps as precaution due to the potential negative influence of AI generated content on quality, as well as likely copyright violations.

This ban of AI generated content applies to all parts of the projects, including, but not limited to, code, documentation, issues, and artworks. An exception applies for purely translating texts for issues and comments to English.

AI tools can be used to answer questions and find information. However, we encourage contributors to avoid them in favor of using existing documentation and our chats and forums . Since AI generated information is frequently misleading or false, we cannot supply support on anything referencing AI output.

I won’t attempt to argue that you should allow use of AI for writing code. If you wish to ban LLM-generated code, fine. That’s probably inadvisable, but I am not going to object.

But this policy is far stricter than that. Notably, it strictly prohibits AI-generated content in issue reports (except to translate text). Don’t do this! Prohibiting bug reports is stupid and just makes your software worse. Please make sure your project’s AI policy allows for at least AI-generated static analysis results and AI-generated vulnerability reports. Otherwise, you prohibit entirely unobjectionable problem reports.

It’s hard to imagine what could possibly be the value of prohibiting valid bug reports. AI-generated static analysis works well: the AI is able to think about your code, follow execution paths, and automatically discard most false positives to avoid bothering you with them, and the quality of reports is generally pretty high. They are far from perfect, but the same is true of humans.

Here is a typical example of an AI-generated static analysis finding:

2. Resource leak in update_credentials_cb on gnutls_credentials_set failure

  File: tls/gnutls/gtlsconnection-gnutls.c:169-172

  When gnutls_credentials_set() fails, the function returns without calling g_gnutls_certificate_credentials_unref(credentials). The credentials was either freshly allocated or ref-bumped, so it leaks.

Pasting this into an issue report clearly violates the ban on AI-generated content. And yet, why would you not want to receive a clear and concrete bug report for memory leak?

I understand not all maintainers are fond of AI, but is your dislike really so extreme that you would choose to ignore valid problems and intentionally make your software worse? If not, then your AI policy should thoughtfully consider how to handle AI-generated content in issue reports. Certainly do not adopt a policy that outright bans all AI-generated content in issue reports.

As an issue reporter, you could theoretically take the problem found by the AI and rephrase all the words, then claim that it is no longer AI-generated content because it is rewritten it. This is a waste of time and usually results in a lower-quality, less-detailed result, but you could plausibly do that. Or, if you want to go above and beyond, you could just jump ahead to creating a merge request. But realistically, if your project does not allow any use of AI in issue reports, it’s more likely that either (a) you won’t receive the issue report in the first place, or (b) you won’t receive such issue reports from experienced developers who read and respect your policy, while users who do not read your policy will continue to submit them.

What about security vulnerability reports? Since the start of this year, I have reviewed well over 100 vulnerability reports that I strongly suspect were generated by AI. To reach the “over 100” claim, I sadly only considered vulnerability reports submitted during a particularly heavy four week period, so this is an extremely loose lower bound. Suffice to say, I have seen a lot of them. The quality varies dramatically. Vulnerability reports are now often better or worse than before: better because an experienced human working with a good AI is able to find vulnerabilities that would have surely gone unnoticed without A I, and worse because an inexperienced human with a bad AI might create some pretty terrible issue reports, a significant proportion of which are just outright spam. Low-quality reports remain a problem, but nowadays most AI-generated issue reports are quite good.

Maintainers do not need to tolerate spammy vulnerability reports. If an issue report is bad, of course go ahead and close it. If it’s really bad, then I sometimes don’t even bother replying. But banning good vulnerability reports solely because some portion of the report was generated by AI is unacceptable. AI-assisted vulnerability reports are the new industry standard, and this is not likely to change. Prohibiting issue reports reduces the quality and safety of your software, punishing your users. This is too extreme.