Neither does the use of an LLM mean you do not understand thoroughly what you submit. He doesn’t give a crap how the code was created, as long as you, the human (I hope), understand what you are submitting and can take accountability for it. You are still responsible for whatever crap comes out of an LLM, the same way that you are responsible for what comes out of the compiler. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use compilers or LLMs.
Do they require disclosure of what font the developer used for coding the patch? No one thinks it matters, but no reason not the be transparent, right?
The reason not to require disclosure is because in their opinion it doesn’t matter any more than the font matters. If the person reviewing the code can’t tell it’s AI, and the code stands on its own, then it stands on its own. If they can tell then it doesn’t meet code standards anyway.
A perspective that I don’t disagree with is that “disclosure” can be a shield for the developer to hide behind. “Anything weird wasn’t me being dumb, just the AI being wonky”, and that’s writing an excuse for subpar code. You submitted it, it’s your code, and if you can’t justify some dumb bit in it then you deserve the shame without the help of a face saving “it was the AI”.
Furthermore - I suspect he doesn’t even care if you understand it. He cares if it works reliably. If you accomplish the task of solving hard problems by taking shrooms and dancing naked on your keyboard, I don’t see why he would care.
Morality of using resources that someone else stole is ‘muddy’ to say the least but the majority of modern society would not function if we didn’t look the other way.
For example, I hope you’re not living anywhere in NA or most of Africa or many areas in Europe or some areas in Asia. Because if you are, you’re probably standing on stolen resources.
That’s a straw man argument at best. You act as if I can control where I live (though I’ve work for multiple reperation charities to help with this exact issue because I know I live on stolen land and I want to give it back).
Knowingly using stolen property to “create” something is not the same as living on stolen land that was stolen two plus centuries ago.
And honestly I find it a little pathetic that that’s the comparison you tried to go for.
AS I said to the other dude, I’m not going to keep coming up with examples because you’ll just keep moving the goal posts. There are tons of examples of something of value, natural or man made, being stolen and later treated as a common good.
I’m no expert but a compiler does not equal and LLM built on stolen data
Neither does the use of an LLM mean you do not understand thoroughly what you submit. He doesn’t give a crap how the code was created, as long as you, the human (I hope), understand what you are submitting and can take accountability for it. You are still responsible for whatever crap comes out of an LLM, the same way that you are responsible for what comes out of the compiler. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t use compilers or LLMs.
Why not be transparent though?
Do they require disclosure of what font the developer used for coding the patch? No one thinks it matters, but no reason not the be transparent, right?
The reason not to require disclosure is because in their opinion it doesn’t matter any more than the font matters. If the person reviewing the code can’t tell it’s AI, and the code stands on its own, then it stands on its own. If they can tell then it doesn’t meet code standards anyway.
A perspective that I don’t disagree with is that “disclosure” can be a shield for the developer to hide behind. “Anything weird wasn’t me being dumb, just the AI being wonky”, and that’s writing an excuse for subpar code. You submitted it, it’s your code, and if you can’t justify some dumb bit in it then you deserve the shame without the help of a face saving “it was the AI”.
Furthermore - I suspect he doesn’t even care if you understand it. He cares if it works reliably. If you accomplish the task of solving hard problems by taking shrooms and dancing naked on your keyboard, I don’t see why he would care.
Morality of using resources that someone else stole is ‘muddy’ to say the least but the majority of modern society would not function if we didn’t look the other way.
For example, I hope you’re not living anywhere in NA or most of Africa or many areas in Europe or some areas in Asia. Because if you are, you’re probably standing on stolen resources.
That’s a straw man argument at best. You act as if I can control where I live (though I’ve work for multiple reperation charities to help with this exact issue because I know I live on stolen land and I want to give it back).
Knowingly using stolen property to “create” something is not the same as living on stolen land that was stolen two plus centuries ago.
And honestly I find it a little pathetic that that’s the comparison you tried to go for.
AS I said to the other dude, I’m not going to keep coming up with examples because you’ll just keep moving the goal posts. There are tons of examples of something of value, natural or man made, being stolen and later treated as a common good.
Just do some research.
Can’t shame someone for being born in a certain place.
This is just one example. I’m not going to keeping punting just for you to move the goal posts.
It’s a mix of conquered, purchased and stolen land
Conquered is a funny way of stolen.
Coerced purchasing, or purchasing from someone else who stole, or purchasing under intentionally false understanding, is still stealing.
killing the previous owner has been a long established way of getting land for thousands of years
Yes that’s one of the mechanisms to steal the land
theft requires a victim, the dead do a bad job of filling that role
You’re disgusting
So I assume you agree that if someone murdered you, you would prefer they go free and live a happy life.
After all what would they be punished for. There is no victim.
if there’s no punishment for murder in war why should there be punishment for killings in peace