It's increasingly the other way around, actually. You are being sloppy if you don't use the tools available to you. Including AI, static code analysis, testing tools, etc. to check if your work is any good. That doesn't mean you have to surrender to the AI tools and blindly generate everything and then commit without testing or any form of validation. That would be sloppy. But then if you manually write your code and did that, that would be sloppy too. Whether you manually type in all your code or have it generated is immaterial. What matters is the work you do to ensure it all works as advertised and is fit to be merged.

The kernel developers are probably a bit further in their thinking then some developers. They've been dealing with many thousands of contributors for decades. Git was invented by Linus Torvalds specifically to deal with ensuring only the best patches make it into the kernel.

Somebody posted a video with Greg Kroah-Hartman last week or so commenting on how he's been dealing with all the AI generated security bug reports. His key point is that AI generated reports are meaningless unless they come with a suggested fix as well. If you are going to generate the report, you might as well generate the fix. And it's a lot easier for him to review if the fix fixes anything worth fixing then to piece together a fix from a lengthy report. The larger the report, the less likely it is to get any attention. If the person contributing can't articulate why the fix is needed or how it works, they just reject the change and toss it back. That strikes me as very pragmatic. Judge a change on its merits. Not on how it was created. A report without a suggested fix is relatively meaningless.