If there’s a predator[1], there must be prey. Here, the prey is time — first, the time of a person who reviews the PR; second, the time of a maintainer who will be maintaining the code after it lands in master.
Pull requests are usually asymmetric[1]: it takes significantly less effort to write a PR, than to review it and then maintain it.
But LLMs skew the asymmetry to an absurd proportion. Many open-source projects have recognized[2][3][4] the problem, requiring LLM disclosures or prohibiting LLM-powered contributions altogether. I believe for the majority of projects, the former approach is a flimsy band-aid, and the latter may be the only sustainable strategy — in the near future, at least.
