Ripgrep AI Policy
singiamtel
64 points
8 comments
May 27, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 107.9ms across 8,637 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Ars Technica newsroom AI policy LorenDB · 17 pts · April 22, 2026 · 60% similar
- Our newsroom AI policy zdw · 192 pts · April 23, 2026 · 59% similar
- The Zig project's rationale for their firm anti-AI contribution policy lumpa · 107 pts · April 30, 2026 · 58% similar
- Wikipedia's AI Policy Antibabelic · 16 pts · April 24, 2026 · 58% similar
- Have a Coherent AI Policy ai_critic · 64 pts · May 14, 2026 · 57% similar
Discussion Highlights (5 comments)
deng
Looking at all the unmerged pull requests in ripgrep, you can see what's going on. I will not link him here, but for instance, there's a "Senior Software Engineer at Microsoft", whose agent created 260 PRs in 211 repos with trivial typo fixes in code comments(!). Almost all of them are rejected (including those in ripgrep), but of course, a few get merged and he now boasts he "contributed" to sqlalchemy, Nim and others... What a time to be alive.
ciupicri
> This policy was adapted from uv's AI policy. Wasn't uv bought by an AI company?
Reubend
This is such a refreshing policy. AI code is welcome as long as it's good, but comments have to be human. If someone can't take the time to write their own replies (in their own words), then it feels fair to assume that they didn't take the time to test, review, and clean whatever code they submitted.
JSR_FDED
This is a very elegant way of dealing with slop, whilst still reaping the benefits of smart people using AI to do useful things.
spprashant
Sounds about as sane as you could possibly be given the climate.