The problem as they've mentioned is AI contributors don't learn. They cannot have a working relationship with an AI contributor. The context about ongoing efforts, planned design changes to the language, etc is lost every time Claude is run. There is no way to work with that. People will submit infinite PRs while the core devs are flooded and forced to repeat themselves an infinite number of ways to an infinite number of stochastic prompts and responses.

The zig team is not that big. They don't have 200 core contributors to filter through the noise and mine PRs for "gems".

You specifically mentioned "a port is justified if they won't budge", which comes across to me as defending Bun's situation specifically, in other words expecting Zig to budge on Bun's bad contribution specifically and because they won't this slop Rust port is justified.

I think an outright rejection of AI contributions makes sense, regardless, and has nothing to do with politics. A Zig developer was forced into writing a long-form post to justify rejecting Bun's awful contribution (lest their PR be sullied, and then it was anyways), and the act of writing that post probably took 10 or 20x more human time and effort than Bun's contribution. Now multiply that by 100 for every random fucking moron with an LLM submitting a contribution. That is not sustainable. Open source maintainers of popular projects would have to make rejecting AI PRs their full time job and stop developing the project itself altogether, if they took them seriously and reviewed at length to conclusively identify whether a PR is good or bad. Given that 99.99% of AI PRs are bad, it's simply not worth it. You cannot possibly expect humans to spend more time reviewing code than drive-by contributors spent generating it, especially when many of them are unpaid volunteers. It's an absolutely ridiculous expectation.