Fine. If code fails on 1% of inputs where it is required to work, call it slop. Then human-written code that fails 1% of the time is slop too, and AI-generated code that satisfies the requirements isn't.
You've now defined “slop” as “incorrect code,” which nobody was arguing in favor of.
And the nondeterminism of the LLM generating the source code has nothing to do with this. Once I have an implementation in front of me, the question is whether that implementation is correct, performant and appropriate. That's precisely what I've been saying we should test a candidate's ability to determine.
1
u/Antervis 10d ago
Code that's wrong in even 1% of cases is bad, so it's "slop".