"introduced a data race bug in the kernel unbeknownst to himself but this bug was caught by other reviewer […therefore] Linus himself did not understand the changes Claude made to the code he submitted in the mailing list"
What other reading of this is there? A bug is being cited as evidence of slop generation, which implies pre-AI the bug would not have happened.
You extrapolated from a single instance where something did happen to an entirely different thing never happening as a position the original poster might have held, whereas it is 100% obvious that that would not be the case.
That effectively makes it a strawman argument.
We are talking about this bug, in this context. Not about pre-AI bugs that did happen and that also were caught (and then there is of course all the ones that were not caught).
Again, "Linus himself did not understand the changes Claude made to the code he submitted" implies that Linus writing the code himself would've prevented the bug.
Who knows, it might have. We just don't know.
> We just don't know.
Yes, that's why the parent poster's argument is bunk; it implies we know.