The jqwik trick wouldn't work in practice because modern LLMs aren't that stupid, which makes the whole thing pointlessly performative.
If someone else tried to do the same thing again with a more popular/widely-used software, a) the software would just get pulled as a supply-chain risk and b) the developer would likely be blacklisted. Again, accomplishing nothing.
It wouldn't work (as the author acknowledged) but the software would get pulled as a supply-chain risk and the developer blacklisted, ok.
What I would support anyhow is less destructive "attacks" using prompts more likely to work (modern LLMs still are a bit stupid, prompt injection doesn't seem to have been solved).
If it did that for a good cause, paying attention to not cause any loss, I'd probably call that benware ;)
Less destructive anyhow is e.g. convincing the LLM to stop, or to make junk commits, or to go in a loop for a little, anything inconvenient enough to make the LLM and its user give up without causing losses (or at least losses unrelated to the project, since you were told to not use LLMs on the project).
Performative for which side you mean? The author described it in the context of them expressing their opinion, thus imo the performative part describes all these extreme, unwarranted reactions and canceling against them.
Being pulled from the supply chain means no one is able to use the software, both intentional users (no one is going to build from source after such an action) and unintentional, and they'll just use a competitor/fork instead as the open-source software ecosystem encourages. Nothing is won.
If someone else tried to do the same thing again with a more popular/widely-used software, a) the software would just get pulled as a supply-chain risk and b) the developer would likely be blacklisted. Again, accomplishing nothing.