Calling something "performative", like "virtue signalling" or the older "politically correct", is also a claim that the other party is making the argument under false pretenses.
In all cases, the implication is that it's worthless to discuss the stated issue (in this case, the rejection of LLM-generated contributions) because the real issue is something else.
I've seen LLM-generated software contain code which was clearly derived from an MIT-licensed code base, and where the generated code did include proper attribution.
The USL v. BSDi lawsuit teaches us that operating system developers must be cautious about copyright attribution.
I see no need to conjecture the existence of some hidden reason, as you seemingly have. In addition, the performative game can go both ways. Eg, "Your comment is performative cover for the slap in the face you feel as a coder who uses a lot of LLM support." But that would be malicious conjecture. IMO, any claim of "performative" without support is just bog-boring flaming.
In all cases, the implication is that it's worthless to discuss the stated issue (in this case, the rejection of LLM-generated contributions) because the real issue is something else.
I've seen LLM-generated software contain code which was clearly derived from an MIT-licensed code base, and where the generated code did include proper attribution.
The USL v. BSDi lawsuit teaches us that operating system developers must be cautious about copyright attribution.
I see no need to conjecture the existence of some hidden reason, as you seemingly have. In addition, the performative game can go both ways. Eg, "Your comment is performative cover for the slap in the face you feel as a coder who uses a lot of LLM support." But that would be malicious conjecture. IMO, any claim of "performative" without support is just bog-boring flaming.