This is what GitHub promised years ago. Showing repositories where similar code is present so you can guess the license and use appropriate outputs.

I’m not sure whether this is implemented or not since I don’t use generative AI for coding.

I agree with you that some people find this very rewarding, but this is not a given.

I for one, don't care whether anyone is impressed by my work. That's a nice bonus, but not a requirement. Instead, when I improve my work w.r.t. my previous one, the satisfaction I get is way bigger than an external validation. I seek my satisfaction inside myself.

That's completely true that I love discussing what I did with a competent technical expert, yet it's not why I'm doing this.

You not only relinquish your voice, but everything standing behind that voice. Thoughts, opinions, perspective, capacity to think, everything.

I'll kindly disagree, even me, as someone who doesn't use any "Chat" tools from big three, can feel if something is AI generated. We're slowly being educated into detecting it. This is why human brain is awesome.

Every model, every computer generation has a subtle signature, and we (as in humans) can understand it.

Moreover, here is a very human-enforced place. Many of us already doesn't like to be answered by a bot here, so community is also a deterrent. Plus, having an official guideline will multiply that deterrent.

Not everything is lost. Have some faith in your fellow humans.

This is quite an interesting question, because I believe there's two facets to the surface of the question.

Given you're interacting with a competent hacker (i.e. a person who is into tech not for money and for tinkering), you can't impress them. You can pique their interest, they may praise you, but if they are informed enough, anything looking like magic can be dissected easily. So technical excellence is meaningless.

Given you're interacting with a competent hacker again, everything technical will be subjective. Creating is deciding trade-offs all the way down and beyond. Their preferences will probably lay at a difference balance of trade-offs. Even though you catch "objective" perfection, even this perfection has nuances (see USB audio interfaces. They all have flat response curves, but they all sound different, for example), hence, technical excellence is not only meaningless, it's subjective.

On a deeper level, a genuine person who knows its cookies well, even though with gaps is a much more interesting and nicer person to interact with. They'll be genuinely interested in talking with you, and learn something from you, or show what they know gently, so both parties can grow together. They might not be knowledgeable in most intricate details, but they are genuinely human and open to improvement and into the conversation itself, not to prove themselves and win a meaningless battle to stroke their own ego.

An LLM generated response is similar. It's lazy, it's impersonated, it's like low quality canned food. A new user recently has written an LLM generated rebuttal to one of my comments. It's white-labeled gibberish, insincere word-skirmish. It's so off-putting that I don't see the point to reply them. They'll just paste it to a non-descript box and will add "write a rebuttal reply, press this point". This is not a discussion, this is a meaningless fight for internet points.

I prefer genuine opinions, imperfect replies, vulnerable humans at the other end of the wire. Not a box of numbers spitting out grammatically correct yet empty sentences.