But most people just want stuff to work, so it's odd to complain about it when others do manage to get it to work using AI to build on top of their prior permissively-licensed work.
Do the massive amount of vulnerabilities not make you think twice?
At this point, I trust human code less than llm code. Design and architecture of the code still greatly benefit from a good human touch, but I'm not sure how long that will remain true.
I believe that there may be valid reasons to refuse anything that was touched by an AI, but that's not about security. It's more about the non-technical problems coming from AI (centralising power, increasing inequalities, carbon footprint, ...).
There's a reason no Omarchy patch of any kind has made it to the kernel list yet. I did personally look into some of their code and it is certified, hacked-togeter slop.
AI-friendly: you can use the LLMs however you wish, but you must thoroughly understand every part of submitted code.
Slop-friendly: understanding anything is optional.
Some would say yes unfortunately.
As an open source maintainer, when someone opens a PR, I don't know who they are. But I don't really care. I care about the PR: is it a "good" PR (there are multiple dimensions: is it understandable, does it add maintainable code, was it tested, etc) or not?
I think "AI-friendly" says "I don't care if it's written with an AI or not: I want good quality PRs".
I would think that "slop-friendly" is the kind of projects where the maintainers don't read the code. Maybe they try the feature (maybe not even?). I think the Omarchy guy was explaining somewhere that he does not read the code anymore, he just lets his AI write Rust. This is slop-friendly IMO.
If you are not AI-friendly, it means that you refuse to accept a good PR even if you cannot tell that an AI was involved. The mere fact that an AI was involved disqualifies the PR.
Everyone understands that LLM is a mean to an end, but it's clear that Omarchy got two confused and it's showing.
* Author posts patch with a manageable number of lines so maintainer doesn't gets burned out reviewing it.
* Tries to outline on the body what the patch is about and his rationale for the design decisions on the code.
* Promptly answers any maintaners questions about the line changes.
* Discloses which AI model he used to assist on the patch and how was it used.
AI slop patch:
* Submits patch with huge lines of code without explanation.
* The body is written in a self-patronizing tone with superfluous formatting that helps nothing but annoys who is looking for the actual substance of patch
* When questioned by maintainer about some line changes either goes radio silent or reply with the usual AI tone of marketin salesman.
* rarely if ever discloses AI usage.