Is the privacy of their code that much of an issue in this case given its a public repo? Its going to get scraped by the bots regardless.

But isn’t this a public repo?

Privacy for a codebase is not the same as privacy for me. Security through obscurity would be more at odds with privacy for the end user.

Are we really shitting on companies because they have a config file for the wrong editor? Sorry, a config file for the wrong editor (excluding emacs because be as prejudiced as possible against those folk)?

Do I like "AI First" editors? Hell no. But VSCode is rapidly making that pivot and I don't know the lineage of Cursor well enough to know if it also used to be "just any other editor". And, from a quick google, it supports local LLMs (e.g. ollama), so the "Big AI is going to have all your code" problem is mitigated...

Also, the repo is on Github. Big AI (Microsoft) already HAS all their code. And before we have "Well you should selfhost a gitea!": If your website is public facing, it has been scraped by "AI". And if your open source project is hidden behind ten paywalls? I am not gonna finish that joke because people get really pedantic and pissy when you try to define "Open Source".

At the end of the day: At a project level? If active code review by qualified developers is going on, I really don't care how the code was written. I DO care about those individual developers and their abilities as they continue to use "AI" based tools but... that is a different discussion.

I WOULD be interested in a link to the actual offending file. I've been part of enough projects where it was easier to just have dotfiles for every major editor because you have a wide range of contributors and no true scotsman doesn't have one of the local vimrc style plugins running. Whereas if it is massive instructions on how to generate code, I would get a lot more worried.

But an unsourced screenshot of a discussion thread ain't it.