@tobi: This is the way. Accept code on merit and ensure that a person takes accountability for it. Doesn’t matter if it was ty…
Summary
Toby Lütke argues that code should be judged on its merit regardless of whether AI was used, in response to KDE's AI policy that encourages human oversight but discourages disclosure of AI usage.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 09/21/26, 07:33 AM
This is the way. Accept code on merit and ensure that a person takes accountability for it. Doesn’t matter if it was typed, chiseled, generated, or bit-flipped via magnetized needle on a chip.
If it’s good, it’s good. If it’s slop, it’s slop.
The Lunduke Journal (@LundukeJournal): KDE is working on an official AI / LLM policy, and it reads like the rules of Fight Club.
In short, KDE’s AI policy:
Encourages using AI, as long as a human is kept “in the loop”.
But you can’t tell anyone that you used AI.
“Don’t disclose LLM usage”.
“Don’t add
Similar Articles
When I reject AI code even if it works
The author explains why they often reject AI-generated code even when it works, citing reasons like inability to explain the approach, overly large diffs, premature abstractions, and reduced system reasoning, and argues for mandatory human review.
@addyosmani: https://x.com/addyosmani/status/2087427868343373919
Addy Osmani reflects on the historical role of human code review in ensuring code quality and begins exploring how that applies to AI agents.
@msimoni: I'm not a luddite, but I'm not interested in software created this way. You didn't even _read_ the code, and you want m…
DHH argues that reviewing every line of AI-agent-generated code is unsustainable and that the future lies in adversarial agent reviews plus automated testing, while @msimoni pushes back, expressing distrust of software written by AI that nobody actually read.
@mattpocockuk: In a phrase, "make bad code unrepresentable"
Matt Pocock argues that in the AI coding era, developers should embrace more abstractions combined with strict lint rules to constrain AI agents to making only good design decisions.
A human in control
The curl project's lead argues for a balanced approach to AI in software development, emphasizing human code review and responsibility while acknowledging AI tools can assist in error detection.