Read the actual post. The stance is much the same as the kernel’s: If your code is solid, it doesn’t much matter how it came about.
The idea is that good code shouldn’t be identifiable as LLM-generated. If it’s within the general variance of human coding styles, abides by standards and the logic is sound and humanly understandable, it’s practically impossible to prove that it’s AI anyway.
If your code reeks of AI slop, it’ll be rejected because nobody wants slop. You, not your tools, are responsible for the quality of your contribution.
That is very different from the “fuck quality, use LLM for the sake of using LLM” mentality Micro$lop are exhibiting.
Humans are fallible. No matter how well you review the code. It would be good if AI code can be identified. The kind of mistakes might be very different from the kind of mistakes human do. So when something happened, it can be identified to be AI generated. That data can be used to get an idea of what kind of mistakes are being committed.
There is a saying in Russian that sounds something like “one little claw is stuck means the whole bird gets eaten”. In other words, slop, not even once.
I have an old collegue that I meet about once a year. A year ago he was all about using it responsibly and stuff, this year we started arguing about merits of slop, and in the middle of conversation he opened a phone, asked a bot for more arguments, and read the response verbatim.
Unfortunate post underneath this one (as a KDE user):
Read the actual post. The stance is much the same as the kernel’s: If your code is solid, it doesn’t much matter how it came about.
The idea is that good code shouldn’t be identifiable as LLM-generated. If it’s within the general variance of human coding styles, abides by standards and the logic is sound and humanly understandable, it’s practically impossible to prove that it’s AI anyway.
If your code reeks of AI slop, it’ll be rejected because nobody wants slop. You, not your tools, are responsible for the quality of your contribution.
That is very different from the “fuck quality, use LLM for the sake of using LLM” mentality Micro$lop are exhibiting.
Humans are fallible. No matter how well you review the code. It would be good if AI code can be identified. The kind of mistakes might be very different from the kind of mistakes human do. So when something happened, it can be identified to be AI generated. That data can be used to get an idea of what kind of mistakes are being committed.
There is a saying in Russian that sounds something like “one little claw is stuck means the whole bird gets eaten”. In other words, slop, not even once.
I have an old collegue that I meet about once a year. A year ago he was all about using it responsibly and stuff, this year we started arguing about merits of slop, and in the middle of conversation he opened a phone, asked a bot for more arguments, and read the response verbatim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism
Did you even look at that Wikipedia article you linked?