Well first of all, if you look at some of my comments you will see that I usually look closer than that. But its true that my opinion of a project plummets as soon as I see a single LLM artifact. I don't agree that there has to be a certain amount of low quality commits for the project to be slop. Its more like if someone pissed in the coffee. The problem isn't the actual volume of urine, it's that someone pissed in it in the first place.

Second, I reject the notion that I have to prove that any code is worse for having LLM extrusions in it. The evidence is clear, you need to be overwhelmingly proficient in any field to be able to catch the multitude of errors that the stochastic parrots shits out and you need to be constantly in your guard, because the LLM is trained to give you output that looks good, not good output.

And if one is even slightly impressed over the quality of what the LLMs output it's a confession that the person don't know enough what he/she just prompted to tell the difference.

Third, even if the output was pristine, objectively correct, and for every given purpose relevant and optimized, just the glaring ethical and environmental concerns should be enough for any decent human to stay the fuck away from the models that are typically used for coding, review and translation. Or are you going to tell me that all the projects I have commented on use ethically sourced open weighted models that run on green energy? Yes this too determines if it's slop, because it's slopping society too.

Also, I am sorry, but "even the Linux kernel devs" is a ridiculous justification. They have as a collective done some amazingly stupid shit over the years and Linus is included in that even before bringing in LLMs in the development.