161–170 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why dylan604 is trying to die on this hill but thats the point, you can't tell apart people using different tools, everybody has their own preferences. Case in point, I have no way to know if dylan604 is even a real human at this point.
I'm much more believable as a human than an account made 38 days ago :face-palm:
Is AI responsible for the committed code? Should AI be blamed when services go down due to the change? The answer is absolutely not - the developer is responsible whether the code was AI assisted or not, and the dev's name should be attached to it just like any change. The OP is right: these are ads, plain and simple, and it's a dark pattern for these companies to have attribution enabled by default
When a paper is submitted to a reputable publication references are demanded. You have to let people know where your ideas are supported, or even come from. To do anything else is plagiarism. AI isn't a co-contributer - but it should be referenced - just like a link to a Stack Overflow comment when that's the source of code. Having AI referenced in the commit is (IMO) best practice - but only co-contributer attribute…
No. So, same goes for ai
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who really cares, though? some people certainly do, to the extent of not caring at all about the outcome, only being concerned with the fact that the process was 'tainted' by ai. the fervor for/against ai can approach the level of religion for some people.
Ideologues always get outcompeted by people with a pragmatic outlook.
Tabs vs spaces Vim vs emacs Dozens of programming languages that do the same
I much prefer this over the alternative where people use AI to code without anyone knowing.
Who really cares, though? AI is just a tool. If the code is good, the code is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but its like writing I "co authored it with vscode/eclipse/sublime/vim" its not super relevant or needed like the original article lays out
How do you come to this equivalency? None of the tools you used generated code. They are just the tool you used to write the code. LLM tools actually generate code that you copy&paste into one of your said tools. They are not anywhere close to the same, and I'm hoping you are aware of this and are just playing a stooge on the internet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t agree/disagree, but why does knowing Claude vs. Codex did it become crucial? What can you do with that information?
It could be more helpful for comparing model performance than just vibes or benchmarks. For example, you could run analyses to compare average line count per change or revert rate by model. Perhaps there will be a paper out in the near future that scrapes AI usage in public repos for a broader dataset.