Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think OP's being hyperbolic, but defending an idea that is dangerous at worst and immature at best doesn't do much to forward creativity, entrepreneurship, or engineering. Engineers who build products that put people (or their data) in danger are bad engineers. We need to hold one another to a higher standard.
> doesn't do much to forward creativity, entrepreneurship, or engineering Who are you (or who am I) to decide that? The entire point of a show HN is to be non-judgmental and charitable, otherwise it's just going to turn into a cynical echo-chamber. The famous Dropbox comment is a cautionary tale for a reason.
Fair my comment is perhaps a bit cynical but the point of it is deadly serious: like if one of the people involved in the mentioned divorce case finds out possible grounds for a mistrial/retrial. IANAL but I understand the restrictions the ACM puts on using LLMs for even paper reviews, which are far less sensitive than peoples private financial matters.
Regardless, I'm comfortable being a called fool.