Some of us respectfully disagree with LLMs for programming being “appropriate and legitimate”, at least if that involves generating code and not just locating bugs.

Local LLMs retain significant issues like the one shown in this clip: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/38072#issuecomment-4105681567 Unless your model uses 100% properly licensed training data which no code LLM I have found appears to be doing.

Sadly, it seems like they’re going to be pro AI internally: https://discuss.kde.org/t/sorry-to-bring-up-a-contentious-topic-kde-ai-llm-policy/46333 (If you jump in to comment, please try to be constructive rather than full of rage.)

Not like the AfD is about to become the most popular party, it’s really very unlike ~1933 for sure, for sure. (/s)

Is there any source for the voice being AI? I’m pretty sure it’s just a guy.

The video appears to be manually voiced and manually scripted. I agree though that the AI slop images are annoying.

I think the video is intended to criticize what is modern C++. From what I’ve heard, at least a large crowd of the modern C++ movement considers the C APIs outdated and is of the opinion you’re meant to use the C++ ones. Seen from that angle, many of the examples in the video make more sense.

I personally treat it as a feature movie length podcast without video. I don’t like that the video uses AI slop pics, but since I’m not looking at them I still enjoy it greatly.

I’ve seen many people use a very different definition of “programming language”.

I knew what this was before I clicked the post… since this is a feature movie I quite like and it’s a guilty pleasure of mine. 😆 (No offense intended to anybody who likes C++. To each their own.)

I don’t have much more to say other than I doubt the data backs up what you’re saying at all.

So what does the signed-off-by magically solve here, that doesn’t require either you or the contributor to legally review every line by an LLM? If you’re not a lawyer, is your contributor going to be one?

So do you want to legally review every line by an LLM to see if it meets the fair use criterion, since you have to assume it was probably stolen? And would you do this for a known plagiarizing human contributor too…?

I agree. However, I think the natural conclusion is an LLM ban. See also here.

If you had a contributor that plagiarized at a 2-10%, would you really go “eh it has to have a degree of novelty to be a problem” rather than just ban them? The different standards baffle me sometimes.

You can find various rates mentioned here: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543507.3583199 and here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/01/ai-memorization-research/685552/

Which I’m guessing they cannot attest, if LLMs truly have the 2-10% plagiarism rate that multiple studies seem to claim. It’s an absurd rule, if you ask me. (Not that I would know, I’m not a lawyer.)

Would you also say that to this lawyer reviewing Co-Pilot in 2026? https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/38072#issuecomment-4105681567

Disclaimer: this isn’t legal advice.

If the accountability cannot be practically fulfilled, the reasonable policy becomes a ban.

What good is it to say “oh yeah you can submit LLM code, if you agree to be sued for it later instead of us”? I’m not a lawyer and this isn’t legal advice, but sometimes I feel like that’s what the Linux Foundation policy says.

If you would have written it yourself the same way, why not write it yourself? (And there was autocomplete before the age of LLMs, anyway.)

The big problems start with situations where it doesn’t match what you would have written, but rather what somebody else has written, character by character.

It’s less extremist if you look at how easily these LLMs will just plagiarize 1:1, apparently:

https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/38072#issuecomment-4105681567

Some see “AI slop” as “identified by the immediate problems of it that I can identify right away”.

Many others see “AI slop” as bringing many more problems beyond the immediate ones. Then seeing LLM output as anything but slop becomes difficult.

Whatever it is, it doesn’t mean LLMs are a sane or “inevitable” answer.