That's not what they meant. It's AI friendly, not slop-friendly.

There's a reason no Omarchy patch of any kind has made it to the kernel list yet. I did personally look into some of their code and it is certified, hacked-togeter slop.

▲

ffemac 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly. As an example, read that Gravity Linux guy's responses here. I will never ever trust him. I will stay away from his code as far as possible. Asahi team: I have my trust in you.

▲

ChocolateGod 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How do you define the difference between ai friendly and ai slop?

▲

dj_morocco 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm pretty sure Asahi devs experiment with LLM tools, but not to Omarchy's extent. LLM ban is purely a filtration filter, so that they wouldn't be spending time overbearingly exhausting number of patches generated with AI, and not someone who cares about this than a shiny tool.

Everyone understands that LLM is a mean to an end, but it's clear that Omarchy got two confused and it's showing.

	▲	saagarjha a day ago \| parent [-]
		No, they’re pretty against AI in general.

▲

inejge 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My definition, FWIW.

AI-friendly: you can use the LLMs however you wish, but you must thoroughly understand every part of submitted code.

Slop-friendly: understanding anything is optional.

▲

ChocolateGod 2 days ago | parent [-]

I also agree with that definition. But for example if I get an LLM to generate 95% of a program, but I understand and have read every line of code, is it still slop?

Some would say yes unfortunately.

	▲	palata 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not the OP, but I wanted to share my 2 cents: As an open source maintainer, when someone opens a PR, I don't know who they are. But I don't really care. I care about the PR: is it a "good" PR (there are multiple dimensions: is it understandable, does it add maintainable code, was it tested, etc) or not? I think "AI-friendly" says "I don't care if it's written with an AI or not: I want good quality PRs". I would think that "slop-friendly" is the kind of projects where the maintainers don't read the code. Maybe they try the feature (maybe not even?). I think the Omarchy guy was explaining somewhere that he does not read the code anymore, he just lets his AI write Rust. This is slop-friendly IMO. If you are not AI-friendly, it means that you refuse to accept a good PR even if you cannot tell that an AI was involved. The mere fact that an AI was involved disqualifies the PR.
	▲	shwaj a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Are you one-shotting then reading/understanding? Then probably slop. Are you iterating to help you understand, prompting to rename/restructure/document until you would have been able to easily understand without AI? Then probably not slop.

▲

flykespice 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ai friendly patch:

* Author posts patch with a manageable number of lines so maintainer doesn't gets burned out reviewing it.

* Tries to outline on the body what the patch is about and his rationale for the design decisions on the code.

* Promptly answers any maintaners questions about the line changes.

* Discloses which AI model he used to assist on the patch and how was it used.

AI slop patch:

* Submits patch with huge lines of code without explanation.

* The body is written in a self-patronizing tone with superfluous formatting that helps nothing but annoys who is looking for the actual substance of patch

* When questioned by maintainer about some line changes either goes radio silent or reply with the usual AI tone of marketin salesman.

* rarely if ever discloses AI usage.

	▲	mrheosuper 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>* Discloses which AI model he used to assist on I don't see why this is necessary ? Does it provide any useful info, or just noise.

▲

tkel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

experience