Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
This is a known troublemaker that's usually caught by volunteer moderators. Some of those are on strike. The rest of the network gets these too and it's not new. What's new is they usually disappear within minutes and now they don't.
And yes, CR does not fit 100% within the Q&A structure of the SE sites. It took some doing to get a review site working within that framework, but it seems to work for enough people.
For me, CR is not about the destination. It's about the process of getting there. If someone else feels they can tag along and learn something from that process, that's great too.
"However if I'm interested in implementing a specific design pattern or something similar, most likely I get a really bad code to follow / build on because there are no final answers / code posted." That's not what the site is for, so maybe that's what's part of the confusion?
"However, we do allow code that is maintained by the asker, and it would seem to fall into that category." How that rule was written never took AI into account, we may want to clarify that eventually. The intend behind the code to be written or maintained by OP was (among other things) so they 1) had legal authority to post it (licensing) and 2) understands enough about the code to provide context about it and implement the provided review in their project (both somewhat mentioned in the 'Authorship of code' close reason). Generated code fails both.
Do the existing policies not already cover this? If there is anything you feel that's lackin in particular, I can write an answer specifically targeting your concerns.
