Oh it's already easy. You start asking the submitter to explain the code. Sometimes it's just visually obvious, too.

I've always had the opinion of it not being slop if you:

1. Take ownership and fully understand the code
2. Make it look like a human wrote it, in other words, scrutinize, re-factor and re-format the code for legibility, performance and maintainability before submitting your patch

This effectively forces you to do research to properly understand how your patch is implemented and puts you through the mental exercise of cleaning up the code. It also more often than not mostly replaces the code the LLM generated anyway, making it yours.

I say all this as someone who turns around a lot of PRs at work for being slop. Come back to me when you can take ownership of your git blame.

Yeah, let's make a super smart AI to detect AI. That'll fix all our Linux maintenance problem. Any AI taints the kernel, so using it is inadmissible in every instance.

constructors

Sir, this is not C++.

I've seen a lot of pro AI posts, but I think this is the first one that's actually pro slop.

Coding is one of the few usecases for AI I don't have issues with per say, but that is with the caveat that it is done by a competent coder who knows what they're doing to make things work better more quickly and with fewer bugs and issues. AI shouldn't replace peoples jobs, except for maybe CEOs, it should be an efficiency multiplier and free people up from doing a load of busy work. Unfortunately I see AI being used as an excuse to fire people and make tye world a worse place in the search for immediate gains for companies without thought of the long term consequences.

The AI haters are as obnoxious as the AI shills