I'm not quite clear, whether that reflects our policy. Maybe it's because "reference aides" and "author contributions in your stead" sounds a bit formal and academic to my ears. I would translate this to

But our policy does not explicitly prohibit to submit AI content. I read

If you use generative AI tools as an aid in developing code or documentation changes, ensure that you fully understand the proposed changes and can explain why they are the correct approach and an improvement to the current state.

more in that any potentially AI generated content must be reviewed, evaluated and curated before submission. - But maybe the point is that we are not very clear what is acceptable and what not.

That said, I'm not very clear

sounds a bit formal and academic to my ears.

Sort of the intent? The colloquial form is "You can use AI to look things up, not to write the contribution for you" or "Use AI to help you, not make the contribution for you"

Which, maybe we should just be that direct? I think reference & inspiration are interchangeable here.

But maybe the point is that we are not very clear what is acceptable and what not.

Yeah, I think that's the bigger problem. Fundamentally we'd merge a bot authored PR if it actually resolved the issue. It's just that what folks are submitting doesn't.

Also the complexity of communicating the policy is why I'm thinking it may make more sense to just move the policy from contributing to the dev landing page as a subsection of policies and guidelines (under the toc boxes). Don't love it cause of scope creep but it applies to everything on the page.

What about something like

AI generated content is often wrong. Always evaluate and correct it before submitting.