"allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose."

Are you sure? It says:

"It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to *create*."

So...big caveat that this is still under review, so what we're talking about is a moving target, but based on what I can see, it seems considerably more nuanced than that. They basically ban LLM-authored code, with a careful carve-out to run an experiment to try to get only high-quality LLM PRs:

> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.

> We carve out a space for "experimentation" to inform future revisions to this policy.

Importantly, the LLM contributions must be solicited, i.e., the people responsible for reviewing the final implementation have to opt in explicitly beforehand.

The discussion thread in the PR is also interesting to got through, lots of people concern in the HN discussion are already well discussed there