It is when the "AI slop" is literally the only source of time-sensitive information, as it is here.

The time sensitive part containing the patch (which was also sloppy) was published last month; this article is but a PoC.

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260922030310.8684-2-habte.y...

Anyway, I think you keep missing my point. It’s the “uncritical” word that is important here. How work is done is often as important as the work itself. Isn’t that what we teach our children and our junior colleagues? What’s more, expectations should be even higher with seniority.

▲

jasomill a day ago | parent [-]

I don't have children, but if a thing's worth doing, it's generally worth doing poorly, even if ideally it would be done well.

I've created a thousand useful hacks that would make AI slop look like high art, that would not have been useful at all had they been polished to a high shine.

https://xkcd.com/1205/

	▲	otterley a day ago \| parent [-]
		> if a thing's worth doing, it's generally worth doing poorly I wouldn’t go that far, especially for activities that when done poorly pose significant risk to life or property. At any rate, communicating with others isn’t quite the same thing as hacking up a mechanism for yourself. The key differentiator here is how much needless burden you’re putting on others’ time and energy.