Everyone commenting have read and understood the article. Perhaps the nuance of the conversation is just going over your head. Your commentary is your personal opinion, which is outside of the source material. What you copy+pasted is exactly what we’ve commented on.

The article never said “reviewing Gnome extensions, where LLM was used, is a huge waste of time”. You are adding to what’s said. The adults are not pulling from outside the article.

We are stating what the article lacks. We are not hallucinating. So if we are not hallucinating then you must not be following. Reread it a few times until you get it.

A saner organization would also hit up submitters for a reviewer’s fee. This would reduce AI spam. Barriers to entry matter.

A reviewers fee is equivalent to Canonical offering customer support contracts. Obviously a person that needs to lean on AI as a crutch, is just screaming out for reviewers to act as advisers. The reviewer just wielding the giant DENIED stamp is fun, but doesn’t address the issue of noobs implicitly asking to work with a consultant.

gnome reviewers obviously never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

They should state a justification. Not merely what they are looking for to identify AI generated code.

The justification could be the author is unlikely to be capable of maintenance. In which case the extension is just going to inconvenience/burden onto others.

So far their is no justification stated besides, da fuk and yuk.