What makes their position tribialism and not yours?

I think rational tool use doesn't have to be tribalist. Right tool for the right job.

It becomes tribalism when there is an enemy. Us and them, mac vs pc, AI vs Humans, the left vs the right.

Maintainers get their FOSS projects bombed with AI slop PRs and issues, and you call their position to not accept slop a tribalist position?

I'm not the OP, but I would personally say that not wanting to work with LLM-generated output (including that submitted via PRs and issues) is reasonable, but not wanting to use LLM-generated code from well-regarded established projects (not vibe-coded slop) is veering closer to tribalism.

Because to me, it's entirely fair to care about the process when you're the one working with it, but if you've never looked at the code and it works well, it seems odd to care how 10% of it was produced.

I still wouldn't quite use the loaded "tribalism" term here myself though, because there are still a few valid reasons to be skeptical of LLM-generated code, but for many people, their hard anti-LLM stance appears to be more of a shibboleth than a principled stance from my perspective.

> Maintainers get their FOSS projects bombed with AI slop PRs and issues, and you call their position to not accept slop a tribalist

Sure, and that's the motte.

This is a direct quote from the linked website:

> Any software whose code, documentation, binaries, or other assets include, in any part, the output of a generative AI tool such as an LLM, is considered “tainted” for our purposes.

... and that's the bailey.

Pragmatism is the opposite of tribalism. GP is a pragmatist, therefore not a tribalist.

> I want software that is brilliant and well audited, no matter who or what produced it.

Not caring about ethics is selfish.