There are so many levels of LLM involvement and once you make this distinction you actually have to devote some of your limited resources to define and enforce it. So I think it might not be strictly beneficial, but possibly also have downsides.
Where would you draw the line at which point it counts as LLM involvement? Having one run as some sort of spell/syntax checker? Doing some research (and being influenced by it) before hand coding something? Having it create a working prototype and then reimplementing it by hand? If you use code from somewhere else to solve a problem and ai use has not been disclosed for this code, do you automatically have to assume LLM usage was involved or is there plausible deniability?
I think in the end you’d have to use too many resources check it and debate where the line is drawn, when the real question is how you retain human knowledge and engagement within your community.
The issue is who decides on what vote everyone gets? I assume the idea is that experts should decide? But there plenty of “experts” with qualifications that I wouldn’t want to make decisions.
Taken to the extreme this would basically be Plato’s philosopher king, which sounds nice in theory, but I don’t see working in practice.
Equal vote might be bad, but it’s the lesser evil in practice.
To throw in my unpopular opinion (not sure if it qualifies as boring or not). There should be no age requirement for voting (in that sense it’s already the case that not everyone has an equal vote because children do not have one).