The problem is the vendors who provide the AI services. And I am very convinced that the only way to nail this is a very strong and powerful tool which can strongly support admins and maintainers with low overhead to spot ugly code.

Then only usefuls candidates need review.

I think you also cannot compare code with vegan. And meat wirh AI.

AI is more like Drugs. That would be the more appropriate comparison. And we all know from drug politics, that, if you forbid to consume it, it becomes illegal and moves to the undergroud. And becomes a worse problem.

Where drugs are legal, controlled and treated with a good health support, drug use became less.

I am sure AI use is like a drug. And becomes worse the more you ban it.

I think the ban will not solve the issue. I am sure it will worsen the situation. It will male a lot of people to lie. And it will create a taboo to talk about LLM use. Even indirectly. And hiding it will not make it better.

We need new admin tools!

But that is not the issue here. In open source it was always about trusting the conteibutors. And it is commn sense, that the scen does not want it. And still the amoint of contributions now is so highe that it seems to be a problem.

Even when you oficially ban it, it will not chnage the situation. LLMs made it possible for non developers to contribute code. Even to people who don’t even understand the code. A highly educated group of people was extended by strangers1/2

I'm aware. I wrote an article about it:

https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/03/31/memo-red-hat-global-engineering-plans-to-lean-in-to-ai/5221432

oh there are tonnes of issues, mostly that AI code is being accepted into the kernel debian is using. I dont know if thats better or worse than all the sabature coders who have been pushing exploits and garbage into the OSS community for over 10 years.

If someone is using an LLM instead of learning, providing official feedback to the LLM instead of growing, and providing the LLM's reply to the feedback instead of engaging...

You're not training the next generation of developers. You're training a model.

that's really sad.

a great anti-AI cartoonist (who posts on fedi) is also being labelled by instagram as »likely to be AI«.

yes, you have to assume the best from others!

but that is made difficult, because those who share AI slop often deliberatly don't disclose it (whether code, images, websites or videos, ...) making everyone suspicious.

perhaps doing a few openly anti-genAI posts on masto should help others know where you're at?

if we compare again with veganism: it would be difficult to be vegan if every kitchen deliberately lied about putting animals into food! but, also, vegans either eat at venues that are clearly labelled vegan — or they ask about the ingredients three-four times to make sure.

1. Make people stop bragging about their use of ”AI” in connection with the project.
2. Make people unable to blame their faulty contributions on ”AI”.
3. Make people unable to blame ripped off code on ”AI”.
4. Make incontrovertible evidence of ”AI” use grounds for banning them.

BAN.

A tool like a linter which detects LLM code smells could be introduced. Which checks if SOLID and DRY was violated badly. This can never be perfect. But why can’t we find a way to automatically scan code upfront with abstract constraints.

Even humans can write really ugly code. Gosh, how often have I seen ugly code of beginners.

There must be a scientific way of maintaining the quality. Instead of „politics“ and „feelings“.

I also assume the ban will happen. But I give that ban one year. Then it will be released again. Because the ban will not solve the quality problems.

The true problem is that tests have no real
Meaning anymore, if LLMs can modify them. Tests coild to be separate repositories, which cannot be touched vy everyone. Or we could invent tools which check the grade of code modifications?

Thorvald says LLM is allowed to be used for the kernel. Then LLM use is banned by Debian.

Is the Kernel then banned?

In biology and medicine they use AI to detect cancer cells. Is this also banned then? Or are these type of programs allowed then?

What is with Computer Scientists developing free LLM tools. Also banned?

This kind of approach isn‘t realistic.

The overall issue is a quality problem. And needs tools to maintain quality. A ban is simply symbolic politics.

No. People have already set the boundary and excluded people who write good code. And accuse them to have used LLM „by a feeling“. And this starts to happen more often. And I can accept a ban only if there is a method to detect this.

„A feeling“ is no computer science.

So, how is „malware“ detected, please? What is the formal method?

.

Again. I am not asking about the BAN. I am asking about the METHOD.

HOW do you detect Slop?

This is the most important question. And if the answer is „by a feeling“. Then we have lost science by far and entered the realm if esoteric.