• Amju Wolf
    link
    fedilink
    36 hours ago

    I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.

    But AI assistance can also mean a lot of different things, from outright vibecoding through autocomplete up to only asking it to so review. It diminishes the human work in the eyes of other people, because a simple disclaimer doesn’t distinguish between the work done, and also encourages people to point out to AI as a scapegoat for their mistakes.

    Good code always was and should always be one where a human is fully responsible for it; if you decide to vibecode and happens to end up with perfect code, good; if you write it fully yourself but it’s crap it doesn’t absolve you that you didn’t use AI…

    It’s a tool, so use it responsibly like any other tool and stand behind your code no matter what tools you used.

    • atopi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      053 minutes ago

      I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.

      If people thought “its impossible to catch everyone so why bother trying to catch anyone at all” when making laws, no laws would exist

    • provectus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 hour ago

      I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.

      Agreed. I an aware a lot of people contributed to the Linux kernel, without disclosing they used ai.

      Good code always was and should always be one where a human is fully responsible for it; if you decide to vibecode and happens to end up with perfect code, good; if you write it fully yourself but it’s crap it doesn’t absolve you that you didn’t use AI…

      Yeah. I do not blame the ai for writing the code, but rather the person to accept and push that code even if they know it is crap.