Simply saying “No AI” would forbid a huge amount of code that was written with assistive technologies that long precede the latest crop of proprietary LLMs; I'd venture it would cover almost all software in distributions for the past several decades.

“AI” is a marketing term, in continuous use from the mid-twentieth century to encompass a broad and ever-changing range of automation and other tools, that is deliberately vague. If we want to be clear what the ban does and does not cover, we need to avoid that term.

And then of course we can deliberate on exactly what is permitted (code that was auto-corrected by a spell checker? code that had its boilerplate syntax automatically generated?) versus what is forbidden (code that was generated in some proprietary data centre? code that is an unattributable, non-consensual remix of existing code? code that was probabilistically extruded from an LLM?), because we'll avoid the useless term “AI” and instead speak of specific tools and technologies.