It does not follow that merely looking at or altering the generated code makes it acceptable. By the rules that have been adopted, a contributor cannot take substantial implementation produced by an LLM, clean it up manually, and then treat the resulting patch as if it had been originally written by them.

I wonder how they intend to enforce this one. Raw LLM output will trigger some kind of "Spidey sense" for anyone woo has seen enough of it. But I don't know how I would tell manually cleaned up LLM output apart from manually written original code