Being Pro-Slop is Death Knell to One's Credibility
That applies also to politicians (even though the politicians who become pushers of the pyramid scheme get campaign contributions - a euphemism for bribes - their constituents are grossed out)
The General Resolution (GR) on LLM usage in Debian was mentioned in our Daily Links and in the sister site some hours later. We had seen it mentioned in a few sites before that and we know Fedora suffers slop fatigue (Flathub bans slop) despite IBM trying to push slop everywhere it can, being both a slop maximalist and a booster as means of gaming the share price (stock of IBM).
It's not hard to see Ubuntu users resisting and antagonising this. It's not hard to see most if not an overwhelming majority of GNU/Linux users pushing back against this - to the point where some distros have a strict "no slop" policy. It's not hard to see critics of Linus Torvalds speaking out against his misinformed rant, which says Linux is not a "social warrior" despite much evidence to the contrary (they call opponents of plagiarism "anti-AI" while banning people based on their nationality and excusing that as anything but "anti").
Slop is boosted by bribes. The companies that literally lose trillions of dollars pushing this "project" are paying various people and institutions (also the media) to participate in this "project" and inflate the bubble.
Those who choose the side of the data centres (white elephants for chatbots almost nobody wants and many companies force workers/customers to use against their will) with their fake "use cases" like fuzzing and plagiarised code nobody can maintain ("legacy code") will end up on the "wrong side of history" and lose credibility. █