I’m kind of torn on this, because on the one side I can see the developer’s troubles. If they have 30 years of experience and they considered the impact of using it they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically. Indeed many of the issues people have with AI are a kind of redirected anger, when really they are issues with capitalism, incompetency, or digital illiteracy. And the person posting the issue seems purely there to fan that flame rather than actually contribute. Something maintainers could use just as little as slop authored PRs.
But on the other hand, being open about the usage is a must. It’s the price to pay for going against the grain. If your ideals and means are pure, they should be defendable and scrutinizable to reasonable people, and there should be no issue with that in the long term. Hiding the usage will create doubt about authorship, and make defenses harder to point at, while it won’t stop the horde.
“I don’t refuse to document anything, I’m just taking full ownership of all commits. Claude is not a person (sorry to all the people named Claude) and I don’t see the point of having it in commit messages. It has a “Sent from my iphone” vibe. It’s just advertising.”
She also said something to the effect of “if you think the AI code I allow through is noticeably worse than my hand written code, you should be able to tell it apart without me labeling it. I’m tired of your bitching about it because of a tag rather than the actual content”
It’s at times like this I like to point out examples like surgeons Ben Carr(?) and Dr. Oz as counter examples that you can be very knowledgeable about something but also very unwise or morally bankrupt it simultaneously.
I’m kind of torn on this, because on the one side I can see the developer’s troubles. If they have 30 years of experience and they considered the impact of using it they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically. Indeed many of the issues people have with AI are a kind of redirected anger, when really they are issues with capitalism, incompetency, or digital illiteracy. And the person posting the issue seems purely there to fan that flame rather than actually contribute. Something maintainers could use just as little as slop authored PRs.
But on the other hand, being open about the usage is a must. It’s the price to pay for going against the grain. If your ideals and means are pure, they should be defendable and scrutinizable to reasonable people, and there should be no issue with that in the long term. Hiding the usage will create doubt about authorship, and make defenses harder to point at, while it won’t stop the horde.
Per the dev:
“I don’t refuse to document anything, I’m just taking full ownership of all commits. Claude is not a person (sorry to all the people named Claude) and I don’t see the point of having it in commit messages. It has a “Sent from my iphone” vibe. It’s just advertising.”
She also said something to the effect of “if you think the AI code I allow through is noticeably worse than my hand written code, you should be able to tell it apart without me labeling it. I’m tired of your bitching about it because of a tag rather than the actual content”
I’d argue that ethical use is not possible:
Yeah what rubs me wrong is that they went out of their way to hide it and are proud of it
It’s at times like this I like to point out examples like surgeons Ben Carr(?) and Dr. Oz as counter examples that you can be very knowledgeable about something but also very unwise or morally bankrupt it simultaneously.