What this image don't show is loonkeks with its bunghole gaped by ai hallucinated code

The saying applies to the "bird", meaning the person using language models to generate code, not to the projects that code is contributed to. The risk of sliding into overreliance and dependency on machine-generated code is real and part of the reason I staunchly refuse to try it, but it's not the responsibility of the maintainers of the project to guard its contributors against their own lack of care.

The project maintainers only care about the quality of their contributions, so that is the target we should judge the policy by.

We know that AI "guardrails" are about as reliable as the models they're supposed to guard. So instead, we need human safeguards in place to hold the result, whatever its origin, to a high standard.

In that spirit, the KDE contributor guide makes it clear that you need to be able to own and explain the code and answer any questions, "even if it originates from the internet, an LLM, a friend, or your pet lizard." Whether that slop is natural or artificial in origin matters less than the fact that it's slop.
There is also a provision for dealing with unvetted contributions: "Throwing code over the wall" explicitly uses the example of "relying on an LLM to generate a patch, and then trying to get it merged without understanding the actual changes" and encourages maintainers to reject such requests.

So by these policies, if that proverbial bird gets stuck and stops delivering useful contributions, their slop should be rejected. Whether they use a text generator to produce arguments why it should be accepted doesn't matter if it's unacceptable.

It's also how genericization happens, which can nullify trademarks.

Yeah I'm trying to figure out if the downvotes are because people don't believe it's an AI image. How is it not obvious. Compare it to the original meme to see all the differences.

This is the Linux foundation generative AI policy: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/generative-ai

Linus Torvald's position appears to be "Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects" and "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use".

I don't understand how you could possibly conclude from that, that it's just used for reviews. The are so many contributors, and if there is no central policy of not contributing LLM code, it seems inevitable to me that there is a lot of LLM code going on.

Or why wouldn't it be? Where do you get that confidence from? All I can see is that many involved people avoid admitting the seemingly rather obvious extent of it.

Sorry, I was (without realizing) also responding to the claim you made in your other comment which links that article.

Thank you for your time.