The sloppers are literally outing themselves, it’s not rocket science.

He’s just admitting the usage of LLMs. They can be powerful tools in the right hands, and he wouldn’t submit that code if he couldn’t take responsibility for it. The bullshit OpenAI ,Anthropic et al are pulling is not synonymous with the technology itself, which will survive those asshats.

I’m pretty sure there were people like you thinking about IDEs the same way.

Or using something else than vim for editing files.

Or replacing punch cards.

He’s just admitting the usage of LLMs.

And we’re saying we should ban people like that. And they made the insane claim that it wasn’t possible.

It isn’t possible. If you get society at a level of repressiveness that you want to have (you know who else only thinks in black and white terms?) they will simply not disclose it, leaving you with nothing to go on besides witch hunts like in the dark ages.

They are disclosing it, dumbass. We’re choosing to do nothing while they disclose it. If they are forced into hiding, good, that is what will make me happy, and since you don’t think it will make a difference then you should be fine with it too, no? The fact that you sloppers feel the need to argue is proof that it would be effective.

Reported for the personal insult btw, this is not needed in any way or form.

Yes, they are disclosing it, and that’s a good thing for you! If you want to avoid products that use LLMs in their code, being informed is key. Increasing pressure on coders who are also under pressure to provide a service - especially if it is fucking unpaid like most FOSS projects - will only mean that they don’t disclose it anymore, because if they can increase their output (for instance by running unit tests or scan for issues) in the limited time they can provide, they will take that edge, people like you be damned. It’s only human.

Your way will only lead into a future where most coders use LLMs, and you are in the dark about it, leaving you without the option to choose.

lmao the sloppers think the slopping makes them more informed. It’s actually sad, really.

“it’s impossible to ensure that no one pisses in the pool, therefore we’re allowing pissing into the pool now”

“we can’t 100% enforce that studenst don’t cheat on exams, so it’s not worth to take a stand against cheating”

Provenance has never been something you can guarantee with code in an open contribution model (which is not the only way of governing an open source project). For all you know the code could be copy and pasted from a proprietary codebase, or be the product of third party who’s work is being plagiarised by the submitter. A software project is ultimately a community and is build on trust and faith that people are acting in good faith. The kind of person who would deliberately (and gleefully as I’ve seen in some social media posts) go into a community and violate its stated values and standards, no matter how arbitrary and illegitimate they feel those are, has bigger character flaws to worry about than their reliance on stochastic parrots to write code.

‘No AI’ rules are ultimately about fostering certain community values and norms than guaranteeing no LLM code makes it in.