It is entirely reasonable for a project to require you to attest that the thing you are contributing is your own work.
The unreasonable ones are the ones with the oppositional-defiant “You can’t tell me I can’t use an LLM!” reaction.
The unreasonable ones are the ones with the oppositional-defiant “You can’t tell me I can’t use an LLM!” reaction.
The simplest refutation of your point of view is, who or what is responsible if the work submission is wrong?
It will always be the person’s, never the computer’s. Conveniently, AI always acts as if it has no skin in the game… because it literally and figuratively doesn’t… so for people to treat it like it does, should be penalized
Who vetted the output?
Who ensured there was adequate test coverage?
Who insisted on a certain design?
Who is to blame if it's bad code? That is the same entity that is responsible, and the same entity that "did it"
tl;dr your stance is full of poop, my dude
That’s what you sound like.
There are a thousand and one ways that I participate when building something with LLM assistance. Everything from ORIGINATING AN IDEA TO BEGIN WITH, to working on a thorough spec for it, to ensuring tests are actually valid, to asking for specific designs like hexagonal design, to specific things like benchmarks... literally ALL OF THE INITIATIVE IS MINE, AND ALL OF THE SUCCESS/FAILURE CONSEQUENCES ARE MINE, AND THAT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS
Please head towards a different career if you now have a stupid and contrived excuse not to continue working with the machines, because you sound like a whining child
And you're not answering the question, because you know it would end your point: WHO OR WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE IF THE CODE SUCCEEDS OR FAILS?
You sound like someone who’s deeply in denial about exactly how the LLM plagiarism machines work. You really do sound like a student defending themselves against a plagiarism charge by asserting that since they did the work of choosing the text to put into their essay and massaging the grammar so it fit, nobody should care where it came from.
and I’m 53 and well remember Symbolics from freshman year at Cornell, in fact my application essay to it was about fuzzy logic (AI-tangential) and probably got me in, so I too am quite familiar
i’m also quite good at debate. the flaw in your logic is that plagiarism requires accountability and no machine can be accountable, only the human that used it, ergo, it is still the work of the human, because the human values, the human vets, the human initiates, and the human gains or loses based on the combined output, end of story; accelerated thought is still thought, and anyway, if a machine can replicate thought, then it wasn’t particularly original to begin with
human prompting != human production