I agree that accountability should always rest with the human submitting the PR. This isn't for deflecting ownership to AI. The goal is transparency, making it visible how code was produced, not who is accountable for it. These signals can help teams align on expectations, review depth, and risk tolerance, especially for beta or proof‑of‑concept code that may be rewritten later. It can also serve as a reminder to the author about which parts of the code were added with less scrutiny, without changing who ultimately owns the outcome.

> It doesn't matter if that's AI generated, generated with the help of other humans or typed up by a monkey.

It doesn't matter how true this should be in principle, in practice there are significant slop issues on the ground that we can't ignore and have to deal with. Context and subtext matter. It's already reasonable in some cases to trust contributions from different people differently based on who they are.

> Splitting out AI into it's own entity invites a word of issues, AI cannot take ownership of the bugs it writes

The old rules of reputation and shame are gone. The door is open to people who will generate and spam bad PRs and have nothing to lose from it.

Isolating the AI is the next best thing. It's still an account that's facing consequences, even if it's anonymous. Yes there are issues but there's no perfect solution in a world where we can't have good things anymore.