I don't love seeing slop everywhere and I don't feel good about models being trained on people's hard work, but... I also have a hard time believing my work was ever much different. I've always regurgitated and synthesized existing solutions. I took them from open source examples. I read people's blogs. I'm basically a really slow LLM most of the time. Is that a form of deception too? I really wonder how much of a difference it is sometimes. Maybe LLMs are just a shortcut of sorts to get where we've previously gotten using very similar means. Just absorbing and recycling ideas, learning by reinforcement, so on.

▲

slopinthebag 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No, building on top of other peoples work is fine. Taking credit for work you didn't do is not the same.

	▲	steve_adams_86 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's a valid take. I think there's substance to that claim. Maybe what I've been struggling with lately is how blurry the lines seem to be. When am I building on top of something, and when am I claiming credit I don't deserve? Along these lines, an interesting category of work is when I have an LLM do something I could do myself. I totally understand the code, I instruct it all the way, I have it redo things, revise, rejig, etc... But I don't actually write any code. How responsible am I for any of that? At work there are a ton of small scripts I use for piping data around ad-hoc, and this is often how I do it. Claude can make dumb pipes really well and remarkably quickly with reasonably clear specs given to it. I compose all kinds of specs, reports, plans, etc. using this workflow. And I find myself wondering... How much of this is me? How much credit do I deserve? The code is gone, the outputs remain, and I can't quite tell how responsible I am for the end product. It's a strange experience.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]