This is more or less my take on it.

I am not against AI code, it can be perfectly fine.

The principle issue in my mind is the rate of change.

Once you rewrite a code base like this (in a week no less) the only way to work on it in the future is using AI tools because no single person has any knowledge about any specific piece of code base any more.

AI generated code that is run through a classic PR process would potentially be fine, but then you sorta lose the entire point of using AI.

> only solution appears to be "even more AI"

That's the idea, to transform businesses to be wholly dependent on "AI" service to develop software. What better way than to re/write entire codebases until no human being understands it.

The Zig project know this, and its so-called "anti-AI" policy is actually pro-community and cultivating human understanding. It's not about the tool or technology, per se, it's about people, knowledge, and sustainability.

In contrast, the Bun project is demonstrating how they doesn't care about any of that, YOLO-ing its way to losing the trust of its users, contributors, and maintainers. Oh well, AI will maintain the project now, since no one else can.

That happened to my project as well. The main issue hasn’t beet that ai couldn’t solve the problem, but it became so slow and you need more and more verification layers and CI/CD that at one point you wish a simpler codebase back, with reasonable tests, with storylines in codes and so on.