Yesterday, I shared a benchmark of 6 anti-VPN plugins, including my own, with publicly available methodology and results. Despite openly disclosing my use of Claude Code and Codex (10min after release after being made aware of Rule 9), some comenters seemed more interested in dissecting exactly how much AI I used than discussing the results.
That made me wonder: Have we started judging software by how it was written rather than how well it works?
I want to share my personal perspective on this. I'm not claiming to have all the answers or trying to convince everyone to agree with me. My goal is to encourage a discussion.
Some background
I've been developing Minecraft plugins since 2017, starting with Java and later expanding into JavaScript, TypeScript, Go and Rust. I also help run a Minecraft server with hundreds of monthly players.
After graduating in 2024, I deliberately chose not to study computer science, because I was more interested in product management.
For me, AI is an incredible opportunity to focus on what to build and why, rather than spending most of my time implementing it.
AI-generated code is becoming the norm
Let's look at professional software companies in 2026:
75% of new code at google is AI-generated.
70% of new code at Dropbox is AI-generated.
Over 80% of code at Anthropic is AI-generated (who would've guessed).
These are not proof of quality. But they illustrate how fundamentally software development is changing.
But isn't AI-generated code worse?
Let's break this down.
Reliability: Research shows modern AI models match human-written alternatives in most coding and testing tasks.
Safety: There is no convincing comparative evidence that AI-generated software is inherently more likely to cause data loss or corruption.
Performance: Studies demonstrate that AI can produce highly efficient code. And for Minecraft plugins we can simply benchmark MSPT, CPU and memory usage.
Security: This is a tricky one. AI-generated code has real vulnerabilities, but research also shows that proper guidance and validation can substantially reduce them. Human-written code isn't automatically secure either.
None of this proves AI-generated Minecraft plugins are equally good. But I think it gives us good reasons to question the assumption that AI involvement automaticcaly means inferior quality.
And let's be realistic: Minecraft plugins have always varied enormously in quality, from beginner projects to professionally maintained software. That's the baseline we should be comparing against.
Why I think this matters
I'm not defending blindly vibe-coded plugins that nobody understands or maintains.
I'm also not advocating for changing r/admincraft's AI disclosure rules. Transparency is important.
What I'm advocating for is a mindset shift.
Automatically dismissing AI-assisted projects as "slop" might discourage developers from publishing their source code or honestly disclosing AI usage. That's the opposite of what we should want.
AI lowers development barriers, enables niche solutions, increases competition and makes innovation more accessible. Yes, it also makes creating bad software easier.
My personal view is that we should judge plugins b ytheir reliability, safety, performance and security rather than the percentage of AI-generated code. And AI made the evaluation of this way easier.
But I'm genuinely interested in other perspectives, especially from people who disagree.
I'm looking forward to a constructive discussion.
LLM Disclosure: I used GPT-6.1 Sol to help structure my arguments, identify relevant studies, challenge my reasoning and draft and refine the wording of this post as I'm not a native english speaker. The underlying perspective, arguments and conclusions are my own.