|
| ▲ | retsibsi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm with you on honesty, and I've certainly seen people tacitly trying to pass off AI outputs as human written. But I think we've reached a point where, in lots of contexts, we can't reasonably assume human authorship by default any more. (We can reasonably want it and push for it! I just mean we can't literally expect it.) So even when we would prefer openness, I think 'lying by omission' is too harsh a characterisation for people who choose not to declare AI authorship but don't actively try to cover it up. |
|
| ▲ | the_biot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Honesty is the whole problem with ideas like this. If you're the kind of deluded idiot that considers LLM-generated crap "your code", stating exactly how little you had to do with it is not in your advantage. Far easier to maintain the lie. |
|
| ▲ | 9864247888754 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Nobody owes you any transparency about the way they develop their software. |
| |
| ▲ | eschaton an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | They do if they want me to use it. | |
| ▲ | jimbooonooo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They sure don't, but often insight into/alignment with the story and development process makes all the difference for which projects people choose to contribute to. |
|