Just like a quality architect wouldn’t want to build a house by making monkeys throw bricks in a pile, with the excuse that he goes after them to fix it.

If the result of the monkeys throwing bricks in a pile is indistinguishable from a team of builders, what does it matter how it got there. If the end result is a pile of garbage, of course it’s unusable and a waste of resources. It’s about the end result.

I don’t know how many more studies proving that LLMs are crap we’ll need before the slop stops.

Imagine if in the year 2000 someone said “how many studies does it take to show computers are slow before we stop wasting time on them”. It’s a technology. Whether you like it or not, this moment is the worst the technology will ever be. The studies you reference are about outdated technology

• someone with zero experience using AI to blindly create something barely functional, feeding in errors until it gets a working version. No checking for vulnerabilities, testing, error catching, no thought on architecture or scalability.
• someone carefully using AI in a controlled manner to create open source software. They spend days making sure that is reliable, scalable, secure, and that the project is quality.

You believe these two are them same? That both are equal slop? Quite frankly, I don’t care if an AI made most of the code for an open source project as long as it is made well, and allows me to get away from awful proprietary alternatives. If the output of an AI is distinguishable from a quality programmer, idk how that is also slop.

messy, generated code with little cohesion and only barely functional

Okay, you’ve described my code. Now what about the AI?