⁂ Article
Give Django your time and money, not your tokens
This article really resonated with me.
https://www.better-simple.com/django/2026/03/16/give-django-your-time-and-money/
Especially this part:
If you do not understand the ticket, if you do not understand the solution, or if you do not understand the feedback on your PR, then your use of LLM is hurting Django as a whole.
Django contributors want to help others, they want to cultivate community, and they want to help you become a regular contributor. Before LLMs, this was easier to sense because you were limited to communicating what you understood. With LLMs, it’s much easier to communicate a sense of understanding to the reviewer, but the reviewer doesn’t know if you actually understood it.
In this way, an LLM is a facade of yourself. It helps you project understanding, contemplation, and growth, but it removes the transparency and vulnerability of being a human.
For a reviewer, it’s demoralizing to communicate with a facade of a human.
Emphasis mine.
It puts into words exactly how I feel about the latest spate of AI generated content, and why I push so hard (sometimes offensively so) for the human behind the PR/work to be revealed.[...]
This article really resonated with me.
https://www.better-simple.com/django/2026/03/16/give-django-your-time-and-money/
Especially this part:
If you do not understand the ticket, if you do not understand the solution, or if you do not understand the feedback on your PR, then your use of LLM is hurting Django as a whole.
Django contributors want to help others, they want to cultivate community, and they want to help you become a regular contributor. Before LLMs, this was easier to sense because you were limited to communicating what you understood. With LLMs, it’s much easier to communicate a sense of understanding to the reviewer, but the reviewer doesn’t know if you actually understood it.
In this way, an LLM is a facade of yourself. It helps you project understanding, contemplation, and growth, but it removes the transparency and vulnerability of being a human.
For a reviewer, it’s demoralizing to communicate with a facade of a human.
Emphasis mine.
It puts into words exactly how I feel about the latest spate of AI generated content, and why I push so hard (sometimes offensively so) for the human behind the PR/work to be revealed.[...] Part of it is standing up and owning the work produced, even if it was produced wholly or in part by AI, and part of it is ensuring that that peer that I want to talk to is actually capable of understanding the problem and solution.
Most fixes, every feature, and every PR adds maintenance burden to a project maintainer. If someone sends me a drive-by PR authored by AI, I have no idea whether the submitter intends to stick around.
