That's a solid reason to keep LLMs away from the kind of tasks that help with onboarding. But a patch series from a competent team that changes 3000 lines should probably be evaluated on its own merits. Or at least, the collaboration-based reasons to reject AI don't apply and the real reason would be something else.
(Though I don't know if this particular patch series would get accepted on its own merits.)
> patch series from a competent team that changes 3000 lines should probably be
split into a bunch of much smaller changes?
I mean in an authoritarian system you wouldn’t make a one off exception like that.
The recent article explained the bun patch would have been refused on technical merits as it's intrinsically incorrect, to be able to work properly it required some language changes.