From my fairly quick reading, their premise seems to be "we can no longer trust unknown developers who use AI to understand and maintain the code they submit".

This seems fair to me: numerous developers would love to put "contributed to the Ladybird project" on their curriculum vitaes, and AI tools can now make this within the reach of a huge number of people.

But the Ladybird project needs more than just working-code, something that AI can easily produce: they need code that is understood and maintainable by the person who submitted it.

Not only does AI-generated code guarantee this understanding and maintenance significantly less than before, but the developers increasingly need to get through an avalanche of AI-generated pull requests rather than, say, code new features.

I would prefer projects to be developed in the open: but when developing in the open makes the code checking gets exponentially harder, and the chance of the submitters sticking around becomes significantly lower, then I can at least understand.

When the dam starts to overflow, then something needs to be done.

I see where you're coming from, but I think it's less the fact that they _can_ use an LLM to do this and more that they can't guarantee anybody else has exercised equal diligence with their code or equal experience with browser engines.

It's not unreasonable to feel conflicted about this, but at the same time, I wonder if they're starting to burn out on code review.