On the other hand, aside from the commit messages, one didn’t ever have access to the underlying thought process of human developers either, so maybe it’s not equivalent to say that secret prompts mean closed-source.
On the other hand, aside from the commit messages, one didn’t ever have access to the underlying thought process of human developers either, so maybe it’s not equivalent to say that secret prompts mean closed-source.
> The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
With that definition, there's definitely space for arguing that the AI tooling for modifying the code is necessary for the modification process to be sane therefore "preferable" for any human, if the code is "designed" (or lack of design thereof) around the idea of being AI-maintained.
Otherwise, it's not source-code, it's not meaningfully-modifiable, it's basically equivalent to just decompiling a binary. (similarly-bad quality may of course be human-produced too, though then at least you have direct proof of it being the preferred form for at least one person - the author)