I’ve always interpreted it as not actually typing any of the code yourself. At least that seems to be the way people that are angry about it are using it.
That’s the line I draw. Same with art or anything else. I’m okay with using AI as an oracle or a tool to check work but the finished product should be human brain -> human hands -> project
It sounds reasonable to me. Understanding the architecture of your project is always critical. It leaves room for responsible AI use, though it could be hard to verify. That’s also been a problem since before LLMs really became a thing (we’ve been complaining about people copy pasting code from stack overflow since it got popular), so I don’t know if it really changes much. I don’t see the anti-AI crowd ever changing their minds.
I’ve always interpreted it as not actually typing any of the code yourself. At least that seems to be the way people that are angry about it are using it.
That’s the line I draw. Same with art or anything else. I’m okay with using AI as an oracle or a tool to check work but the finished product should be human brain -> human hands -> project
For me it doesn’t matter if you type it as long as you understand it and it makes sense how it is written.
I can get behind that definition.
What’s your position on all that?
It sounds reasonable to me. Understanding the architecture of your project is always critical. It leaves room for responsible AI use, though it could be hard to verify. That’s also been a problem since before LLMs really became a thing (we’ve been complaining about people copy pasting code from stack overflow since it got popular), so I don’t know if it really changes much. I don’t see the anti-AI crowd ever changing their minds.