[acedTrex]

I mean if you want bury your head in the sand and try to play semantics over if its ENOUGH proof or not go right ahead.

But it's more than LLM enough for anyone who has experience with them to conclude the LLM drove the majority of the output. Hence, slop

[minimaxir]

To be clear, I agree that there was likely AI assistance with the code (as it will be a safe assumption going forward in SWE given the progress agentic LLMs have achieved in the past few months), but a) that doesn't intrinsically mean it's slop and b) the "all AI is slop" bit is intellectually lazy at best especially without objective evidence and doesn't lead to constructive HN discussion.

[acedTrex]

> a) that doesn't intrinsically mean it's slop

If it can quickly and easily be identified as LLM code then yes, it is intrinsically slop and of no value. The person who submitted it did not even value it enough to look at/clean it up. Why would anyone else care to look at it.

If it is LLM generated but then HAS BEEN cleaned up then you cant immediately see the LLM and it passes the check anyways.