Recent PEP discussions seem to benefit from somebody using AI to create a first implementation (e.g., PEP 805: Safe Parallel Python ). Similarly, the lazy import PEP ( PEP 810 – Explicit lazy imports | peps.python.org ) explicitly links to a demo that was (at least partially) written with and attributed to Claude: Add Python lazy imports interactive demo · cdce8p-cpython-demos/lazy_import_demo@d153080 · GitHub . You can find many more examples on here where using AI improved the quality of the conversation, or at least did not have a negative impact. Just as you can, unfortunately, find many examples where it had a negative impact (and we should keep flagging those).
I think most participants on this forum can read between the lines and understand that there is difference between curated AI-assisted code and just throwing hundreds of lines of code on discussion participants. I think that is also what the second sentence alludes to. However, having to read between the lines in a policy often leads to disputes. I trust you have discussed this at length, but from my perspective the current wording feels a bit too strong about what is exactly allowed in terms of posting code that was (partially) written by using AI.