My preferred machine generated (“AI”) contribution policy¶
It’s all the rage to either ban anything touching content generators (“AI”) or go all in on it. Neither are quite satisfying to me, and seem to miss the point. Below is an attempt at the general policy I would prefer, if someone were contributing to one of my projects.
Once something is machine generated, it is hard for a human to get understanding (and control) of it again (it just becomes too verbose and not flowing with a human’s thoughts). Thus, accepting a single large machine-generated contribution can affect all future work on that project. This is one of the many reasons to reject such contributions.
The way I see it,
When something is machine-generated, it’s hard for a human to understand and modify it. Thus, machine-generated content shouldn’t be submitted to human-made projects by outsiders (the project owner decides to make that transition).
If a project is machine-generated, then I don’t need you to run the generation machine for me. I can do it myself, and I can control and review it better that way.
The below is not to say that I think machine-generated content should necessarily be accepted at all or even is good. There are plenty of other reasons to reject it. Still, many reasons miss the point, so here is my point.
Still, a content generator machine can be useful, but where to draw the line? I currently (2026) would say the following for my projects:
Generating content should not replace human thought. A good way to judge this is the amount of content out compared to the amount of content in. If something would take you N time units to make without “AI”, and using whatever “AI” you want takes about N time units to make it with, I’ll consider this essentially a human contribution.
Machine-generating a contribution to save a lot of human thought can sometimes be useful, but submitting it for review by another human isn’t (they should review the generation process instead). Thus, generated (or partly generated) contributions should be declared so that they can be given an appropriate type of review. I will have a low rejection threshold since you didn’t spend much time on it and if you can do it in [few time units], I can do it in [few time units] too and can probably get the results I want faster by adjusting the input prompt myself, rather than reviewing it and making suggestions back to you.
Yes, this does make an asymmetry: I can use more of the content generator on my projects than you can. Likewise, I won’t use when I send stuff to you. That’s how it works. Unfortunately, this does make a bit of a “rich get richer” system and affects how fast others can develop their skills, and that needs a solution.
You can stop reading here. If you want some specific examples:
Good: Using translation or assistive technologies, even spelling or grammar checkers, for your own stuff you contribute to me is fine: it helps you do human work more efficiently, or do a trivial processing task faster.
If it significantly changes your words, it’s much less so.
Bad: running the same as above on my content and contributing the changes. I can do that myself just as easily.
Good: using a content generator to figure out what to do or how to do something, then doing most of the work yourself (or starting with a very early prototype).
Questionable: Using a content generator to paraphrase, rewrite, or change style is a borderline case. It outputs about as much as went in, but for what purpose? I would want to know what you think; don’t undersell yourself. I would also do this myself if needed. If I wanted it in my style from a content generator, I would run the generator myself to get my style.
Uncertain: using a content generator to come up with some initial concept then expanding it out. For example, I might use it to come up with an idea for a roleplaying scenario, and then expand it out myself. I am bad at coming up with scenarios, but I think it is the expansion and refinement that is hard. I might be OK with the final product (machine idea + human development) contributed, but it’s heavily dependent on the situation.
Bad: Using a content generator to write anything significant is a “no”. Most of this was in the content generator and gives me no value. Just refine your bullet points and let me ask the content generator if I need an expansion. Even if you fix it up, I can’t tell what you did vs. what has no value. Maybe instead use that to fix up your original prompt and just send me that?
Use a generator to write a cover letter for a job? Not going to want to read it.
Use a content generator to write a report? I’m just going to skim it and not give much attention. Just tell me the prompt.
Use a content generator to curate a section of background info, and delimiting it saying “This background was machine generated based on my curation and revision and think it’s useful?” Not sure if it’s fully good, but at least I can live with it and won’t hold it against you if it’s clear.
Bad: using a content generator to fix some code or add a feature. Describe the feature and I can prompt and review myself (yes, might want to try the prompt yourself to make sure it works).
Bad: you use a content generator to make some decision for yourself. This may be fine for you, but don’t pass it off to someone else as “your” decision.
