Provide a long-term policy for LLM usage

[PPPDUD]

In 2023, @GarboMuffin made a temporary LLM policy but then removed it a year later. #2258 brought up the possibility that LLM-written code may be able to pass code review with the current state of things, and this would be a bleak reality for our userbase.

This pull request makes a more permanent set of guidelines that were written in the spirit of GarboMuffin's original ideas, but expanded to account for the modern usage of LLMs and the increasing number of image generators.

[Brackets-Coder]

I wouldn't make this official yet, it's not a fine line and my statement in #2258 was non-conclusive. While I personally have opinions about proper responsible use of artificial intelligence, I'd wait on @GarboMuffin's opinion on really anything regarding official contributing guidelines.

[Brackets-Coder]

Tricky issue...

[PPPDUD]

@Brackets-Coder I started a review by accident. Please ignore it.

Problems fixed.

[PPPDUD]

@Brackets-Coder @GarboMuffin What do you think of the latest revision?

[Brackets-Coder]

This is still a tricky issue, I'm going to need @GarboMuffin opinions.

[PPPDUD]

#2286 appears to have been assisted by an LLM. This is getting worse every day that my policy improvements are delayed.

[PPPDUD]

@SharkPool-SP @CubesterYT I want some more perspectives on this. What do you all think?

[GarboMuffin]

i am not presently concerned about the lack of an LLM policy in that document

[Brackets-Coder]

Closed because comment above

[PPPDUD]

I am reopening this because #2327 gives us authority to approve CONTRIBUTING.MD changes ourselves.

Predates new review procedures.

[PPPDUD]

#1828 and #2338 are also disclosed as having used LLMs. @Brackets-Coder @CubesterYT What do you think about approving this now that the new review process is in place?

[GarboMuffin]

I am not convinced that we need an LLM policy. People seem to be largely honest about it. Having a no LLM policy will still result in LLM spam they just won't be honest about it. Have you found any significant functional issues in those extensions?

[Brackets-Coder]

I'm not deeply concerned about an LLM policy, if an extension is poorly written we won't approve it anyway
it it just so happens to be perfect and written with an LLM then it's probably too small or niche to be merged

[PPPDUD]

I am not convinced that we need an LLM policy. People seem to be largely honest about it. Having a no LLM policy will still result in LLM spam they just won't be honest about it. Have you found any significant functional issues in those extensions?

I'm not deeply concerned about an LLM policy, if an extension is poorly written we won't approve it anyway it it just so happens to be perfect and written with an LLM then it's probably too small or niche to be merged

I'm mostly concerned with having some procedure to quickly reject LLM spam without having to treat it with the respect of someone's actual hard work. Currently, there is not a well-defined procedure for handling such extensions, and the PRs will often stay open for several months before getting closed.

As for functional issues, take a look at #2338. Their proposal incorrectly claims that "all strings...include German, Spanish, French, etc., translations within the file". If you review their source code, however, you will notice a complete lack of such functionality. They also added an apparently-hallucinated description field in their getInfo() function that appears to do nothing.

This is the sort of code quality that will slowly destroy any large project, TurboWarp included.