Restricting user freedom.

Wading through piles of human slop.

Insecure human slop on top of that. Projects not checked in-depth by AI is recklessness at this point, prove me wrong with an example.

Their ToS only forbids projects that 'mostly consist of code' created with genAI, it says nothing of code that is reviewed through it or projects where it only makes up a small portion of the whole package. The reasons for that are outlined and quite clear - their organization focuses on projects with a certain license and LLM code is in limbo regarding its copyright status.

Basically, unlike your stance, they are rejecting people who are outright saying that AI alone > humans. Which seems to be a popular opinion on HN. Given how angry you are about this, I don't think there's as much separating your opinion from the vibe coders' view as you think there is. I mean, look at this, we're only a few years into LLMs being viable code generators and we already have people accuse them of malice, recklessness and embracing 'human slop' because they dare to have a softball policy on using this brand new tech. What will the average opinion be like in 2 years? Humans are just bad and can't be trusted to do anything manual at a computer, leave it to the agent?

> What will the average opinion be like in 2 years?

The people who pretended to be virusologists and financial moguls in the previous bubbles and are now pretending to be software developers will move on to something else once this bubble pops.