Then why did he try to submit slop?
Humans can produce garbage code. As can AI. So therefore the process around the code matters, and it seems clear to me the author has had a reasonable process around the code, as opposed to blindly accepting some 1-shotted output.
To me this looks like good use of AI.
This doesn't match at all with what the author described in the article.
> Anyone trying to say "but my slop isn't slop, I vetted it" clearly is not in possession of the necessary critical thinking skills to differentiate between slop and non-slop.
This is called a Kafkatrap. It works in any direction, in any situation, making the disagreement moot. Also not considered good faith rhetoric.
What the author describes are all the usual defenses of LLM slop, all the usual weasel words that boil down to "But I'm different and smart, my slop isn't slop."
> This is called a Kafkatrap. It works in any direction, in any situation, making the disagreement moot. Also not considered good faith rhetoric.
Applying a label to my reasoning to discredit it is also not done in good faith, and simultaneously does not make it any less true.
LLM slop is fundamentally a "what color are your bits" kind of situation. And you cannot, in any way, ship-of-theseus it away from slop.
My view is that there are people capable of vetting LLM generated code, and people who are not capable of it, based on their previous track record of vetting non-LLM generated code and the quality of their own non-LLM generated code.
For example: I would trust the capability of John Carmack to vet an LLM generated bug fix, to his own game engine. Even if it was LLM generated by him, and vetted by him.
This website is full of people with a financial vested interested in never accepting that slop is slop, so there's no convincing them.