Why is it "political" to say "I don't trust software fully written by an LLM that has not been vetted by a human"? That feels like an entirely reasonable stanc

Why is it "political" to say "I don't trust software fully written by an LLM that has not been vetted by a human"? That feels like an entirely reasonable stance to take. And I see the argument/correction downthread that it's an "emotional" or "ideological" stance. Why does it have to be that? It seems completely rational and logical not to trust software written by a technology that is known to hallucinate and "cheat" to make tests pass. Of course, I can't say that the yt-dlp maintainer is or isn't being political/emotional/ideological when making this decision; none of us can know their true motivations without asking them, and I choose the charitable explanation unless shown evidence otherwise.