Yeah and when teachers or employers use it to reject things outright, it's really dumb. But if it's presented as a probability to the user rather than a binary like most LLM results are presented to users, then it is useful. If something has a high probability of being LLM generated then it can cast suspicion and investigation can happen. Unlike how things like facial recognition are used to prove guilt without any investigation when the probability of a match is low, but no better matches were found and the police aren't told it's low probability because then the product would look useless in solving crimes for them which is what they want in a product, not an investigation tool. That's not what they were sold.

Point being. It's a tool. It's a metric. And used as such it can be helpful if all of a developer's contributions get flagged as high probability, then looking more closely at the code can be warranted. Though if LLMs themselves were configured to tell the user how probable that their answer is correct, it might not even be an issue needing investigation. It's not the malicious ones that they're looking to stop with these policies. It's those unwittingly submitting bad LLM generated code with serious consequences. Like all those destructive things that happened at Amazon (and others I'm sure, just Amazon was in the news) when they started replacing senior developers with cheap contractors armed with LLMs and no experience. Even my company has been doing it. It sucks all that we've lost and how bad things have gotten.