[DOC] dev landing page admonition about AI usage/link to policy

[story645]

PR summary

Adds an admonition summarizing the policy and linking to it under policies and guidelines on the dev landing page, per
#30439 (comment)

closes #30439

PR checklist

• "closes #0000" is in the body of the PR description to link the related issue
• [N/A] new and changed code is tested
• [N/A ] Plotting related features are demonstrated in an example
• [N/A] New Features and API Changes are noted with a directive and release note
• Documentation complies with general and docstring guidelines

[timhoffm]

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

Suggested change

	Use AI tools as reference aides, not to author contributions in your stead. For
	guidance, see our :ref:`AI policy <generative_ai>`.
	AI tools may be used for reference or inspiration, but you must personally
	author all submitted work. See our :ref:`AI policy <generative_ai>`.

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

[story645]

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.

[story645]

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.

[rcomer]

What about something like

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

[timhoffm]

How about

Suggested change

	Use AI tools as reference aides, not to author contributions in your stead. For
	guidance, see our :ref:`AI policy <generative_ai>`.
	We expect original effort and engagement for all contributions. AI may be
	used responsibly as a supportive tool, but must not be appplied blindly.
	For guidance, please refer to our :ref:AI policy <generative_ai>.

[story645]

Let me see if I can get that down to something about half the length.

[story645]

my intent is to shift the heavy lifting of defining "authentic engagement" to the long form policy. I think trying to define it in the note is where we get into trouble here.