===
Condones the use of AI/LLMs to ingest the project's contents. This can be for "understanding the code better", "finding bugs/security issues/optimizations". This tag is to be used independently for projects that generally reject the use of AI in their code repositories, issue trackers, and sponsorships, but still encourage or permit users to use LLMs to ingest their code base. This is independent of a project's licensing. This tag is to be used for the maintainers' statements about, or reactions to, the usage of LLMs/AIs to ingest the repo.
The reason we still find this worthy of a tag is because it:
- means that the LLM, often provided by a company with very little respect for copyright, will then save a copy of that open source repo for use in it's future outputs.
- still encourages people to use LLMs and carves out a special situation in which they're still OK, but as this repo is against AI/LLMs for more than just "poor code quality" reasons, we still believe this is not a good course of action as it still promotes the use of inherently unethical tooling.
Evidence may be, but is not limited to:
- An AI or Contribution policy that carves out a space for "using LLMs to understand the code" or "finding bugs" - Core maintainer using or accepting the use of AI for finding bugs or security issues
===
If I understand it correctly, if someone merely opens an issue in an open-source project and says something like "Claude helped me find this issue", and the maintainers don't immediately close it, then they get on the list in the repo.