> Yes, there's always an alternative: stop maintaining these lists.
Or use your own AI judge agent to filter out the submissions that clearly don't align with the intention of the list.
Sounds like they don’t even need to pay for AI. Maybe a deterministic script that does some basic quality checks like verifying that the linked repository isn’t day old slop, and auto-rejects the ones that don’t pass muster would be better. For starters, then you could have well-established and documented rules. Which people generally seem to prefer over AI referees that reject things for opaque and confusing reasons (e.g., YouTube moderation) and can’t be reasoned with.
I appreciate the suggestion but in this case I don't believe the solution to AI problem is using more AI. I personally believe what makes these lists "awesome" is the human element, not some deterministic checks that another agent could run.