alt Hacker News> It's more like if someone dumped lab-grown diamonds on the side of the road that are virtually indistinguishable from mined diamonds.
Equating LLM generated code to "lab-grown diamonds" is disingenuous at best.
> Someone would be happy to take them and [be] none the wiser.
If the quality of GenAI PRs were equivalent to those authored by experienced contributors, then there would not be as many GenAI PR bans in FOSS operating system repositories.
The quality of GenAI PRs scales with the driver. Many are low-effort, ill-considered, overly verbose and otherwise bad. I've seen decades of similar patches/PRs from humans.
If it "looks like claude" in that it's overly verbose (in code or comments), missing tests, etc then it should be rejected for lack of merits. If the only indication is "this user fixed 10 bugs in an hour" and the PRs are otherwise fine on the merits, rejecting the PRs because an LLM wrote them is the same as rejecting them because you know they're from an emacs user.