Are you saying the article author is just being ungenerous,or misquoting him entirely? Because it seems from the quotes presented like he did not say that new contributors are likely to be LLM slop, just that if their contributions are of "low quality" (subjectively) they should receive low priority. Amid the mountains of AI slop this means humans attempting to learn will likely be ignored and receive no (human) review. For the Linux kernel on its vaunted high horse, that may be acceptable or even desirable, but for open source in general it's not, and for open source projects trying to be free of corporate capture, a more pro-social approach is needed.

I feel like you've either misread Linus' orientation towards LLMs or the author's usage of the word slop if you think there's any chance of a moratorium on LLM patches at this stage, when they are not only already happening en masse, but removing the requirement that they even be disclosed.

The author is certainly not looking favorably on Linus' statements, and they say a few things which give me pause about their accuracy and knowledge level, but overall I find myself agreeing

I found this bit interesting:

Torvalds added that he does not want to scare off people who want to write code; his message is that you have to either put in the effort to learn, or put a lot of money into an LLM to participate.

… Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy.

All the corporate contributors are the primary ones coming in with a wave of LLM slop code, breaking the social structures that made the patch review process function, not just the random people from the internet who are more easily ignored. Ive seen it in reality, the author is correct at least about the breakdown of processes precipitated by slop just leading to more LLM usage. No human has an inherent desire to write thoughtful or helpful reviews for and teach a machine that cannot learn and does not think. Interacting with such is a very degrading experience, IMO.

Turning away randos coming in with poorly written patches was always part of the gig, but the influx of those was also a lot lower when it was just humans submitting them.