I mean if you want bury your head in the sand and try to play semantics over if its ENOUGH proof or not go right ahead.
But it's more than LLM enough for anyone who has experience with them to conclude the LLM drove the majority of the output. Hence, slop
To be clear, I agree that there was likely AI assistance with the code (as it will be a safe assumption going forward in SWE given the progress agentic LLMs have achieved in the past few months), but a) that doesn't intrinsically mean it's slop and b) the "all AI is slop" bit is intellectually lazy at best especially without objective evidence and doesn't lead to constructive HN discussion.