My definition, FWIW.
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.
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.
Are you iterating to help you understand, prompting to rename/restructure/document until you would have been able to easily understand without AI? Then probably not slop.