This was more so rhetorical to try to get to the root of why people are wanting it banned. For many, they dislike AI and are coming up with any other excuse to validate their feelings, such as “bad quality”. It’s a valid position on its own to just not like AI, and if that’s how people feel that’s what the rules should reflect. If it’s truly just about quality, then it would be fine if everything was AI as long as it was high quality. I imagine most people don’t want the latter, but that seems to be more what the conversion should be addressing

Just like a quality architect wouldn’t want to build a house by making monkeys throw bricks in a pile, with the excuse that he goes after them to fix it.

If the result of the monkeys throwing bricks in a pile is indistinguishable from a team of builders, what does it matter how it got there. If the end result is a pile of garbage, of course it’s unusable and a waste of resources. It’s about the end result.

I don’t know how many more studies proving that LLMs are crap we’ll need before the slop stops.

Imagine if in the year 2000 someone said “how many studies does it take to show computers are slow before we stop wasting time on them”. It’s a technology. Whether you like it or not, this moment is the worst the technology will ever be. The studies you reference are about outdated technology

• someone with zero experience using AI to blindly create something barely functional, feeding in errors until it gets a working version. No checking for vulnerabilities, testing, error catching, no thought on architecture or scalability.
• someone carefully using AI in a controlled manner to create open source software. They spend days making sure that is reliable, scalable, secure, and that the project is quality.

You believe these two are them same? That both are equal slop? Quite frankly, I don’t care if an AI made most of the code for an open source project as long as it is made well, and allows me to get away from awful proprietary alternatives. If the output of an AI is distinguishable from a quality programmer, idk how that is also slop.

What happens if AI gets good enough in like 5-10 years to (largely) no longer fit the created definition of slop? Do we revise the definition to be more restrictive, allow the content, or block AI content all together.

The answer to this question determines if it’s really about the quality of the content or if it’s more about the fact it is computer generated.

messy, generated code with little cohesion and only barely functional

Okay, you’ve described my code. Now what about the AI?