But people think it does, and it’s annoying. The past months I’ve often found mistakes and then heard the response along the lines of “oh Claude wrote that”.

It’s used as an excuse, and then the conversation just moves on. I don’t see a lot of accountability being taken. If anything, senior leadership sees it as a sign of adoption and accepts a certain level of risk.

▲

godwinson__4-8 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What is "taking accountability" supposed to look like in this case?

As an aside, trying to enforce some cultural more without the backing of senior leadership is a waste of time. You should probably follow your colleagues example and get a better return on your time with Claude and stop caring. If you are the only one at your company who cares and you aren't the largest shareholder I have to ask under what economic theory you are operating. Unless you work for a charity or something you should probably either find a new job or stop complaining about the relative luxury of being handed a fistful of money just to be able to say "Claude wrote that".

Apparently no one at your company cares, so why do you?

	▲	antonvs 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> What is "taking accountability" supposed to look like in this case? Admitting that you didn't validate the AI output carefully enough, and committing to do better in future. > Apparently no one at your company cares, so why do you? I'm not the other commenter, but this is part of my job. I'm often called in to deal with issues that have been created by bad developers, offshore developers, contractors or consultants who've helicoptered in and out, and now AI. The basic requirements are the same in all these cases: identify the problem, recommend and/or implement fixes, and recommend process improvements. Sometimes those improvements involve negative effects for the people perpetuating these issues. It may not be wise to assume you can abdicate all responsibility for your work if you're somewhere that does, in the end, care about results.