This is a poor take. We need to stop slop and low effort issues/PRs. Stopping AI generated code is a lost battle because detecting that in high quality work is impossible.
If people can't make a good (PR, story, or whatever) without AI, they certainly can't do it with AI, because using the AI is strictly more difficult - it requires all the original skill, plus the skill to work around the AI's quirks.
This is arguably isomorphic to Kernighan's Law:
> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you’re as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?
Are you sure about that? Can you make the opposite case and steel-man it? Until you can, a stupid LLM will be smarter than you are.
I can write a PR now. I can code now. Probably not as good as you can, but before LLMs I couldn't. I tried for decades learning to code. My brain is a Top-down network, I can see the big picture very quickly, but I cannot maintain focus to build bottom-up. Now I don't have to. I use LLMs to set the goal, to examine all corner cases, to define the milestones, to predict the wrong turns, to write a human-readable spec, to break it down to units of test code, to write the blue-prints of units of code. I can test them, and debug them with LLMs. The end result can be sub-optimal, but it runs, it does what I want, is well documented, and is maintainable. Before LLMs I couldn't do any of that. In doing all this, I get better at the bottom-up thing, just by trying.
We are a spectrum of people. Do not assume the world is like you.
This is arguably isomorphic to Kernighan's Law:
> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you’re as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?