My problem isn't who wrote it, but the pretense of something having written by a person while it wasn't.
There's something profoundly disrespectful about it towards the receiver.
There's something profoundly disrespectful about it towards the receiver.
Of course the level of moral disengagement that's rife around here generally precludes any recognition of such things, as that might be construed as "harshing the vibe on the innovation, man". So I guess everyone had better just settle in and get used to some serious profound disrespect until this type of thing hits enough of a critical mass that a societal ethics framework begins to manifest around it and not be ignored.
Nope. Because the individual end user still and already has a choice. A choice to write an email (or whatever) on their own. Be it supported by AI research or whathaveyou, or not.
Far better, and frankly perfectly acceptable, to say or have it implied or concluded, that Ai helped with the writing in some way. Still, if you're paying attention, it often shouldnt really be all that detectable because you should be aware of AI's smells and you can edit them away. Though, sometimes I'll leave it as obvious that Ai produced something I shared - eg making a well formatted github issue or whatever. But I'll also make sure to convey that a thinking human was behind it, vetted it etc
I agree with everything here, and do the same, but in my experience people will still interpret doing this as “profoundly disrespectful towards the receivers”. The sibling to your comment seems to express that sentiment:
“There's something profoundly disrespectful about feeding snippets produced by human authors en masse into a machine learning algorithm to create a predictive text generator to be applied as labor replacement, regardless of accuracy or appropriateness to the context or use case.”
Still, the reality is that these people exist and we're going to have to interact with them, sometimes even try to win their favour. So, the onus is on us to not trigger their irrational anti-ai hate.
I had such an experience last week, and in hindsight I probably should have written the issue differently. I used Ai there primarily to help me be more thorough and have the whole thing be better-formatted than I would have otherwise done myself (ain't no one got time for markdown tables etc).
I should have made it less thorough and more plainly formatted, because it did, admittedly, scream AI. That undermined an otherwise thoughtful and important issue. Though, the people who actually mattered didn't take exception and replied thoughtfully - perhaps partly because I had already gained some degree of trust with them, via thoughtful, useful issues and PRs.
In the end, Ai is a magical tool that can be enormously helpful with almost anything. But we have to use it consciously, like anything.
I'm at the point where I don't even want to interact with that mentality. I get it, as I too don't like to see endless slop so there's got to be a quality bar and standards. But when the standard is set to zero tolerance, the whole vibe of the community plummets as the example I pasted shows.
Originally I was for the policy, as there was a lot of low quality content.
But now people are finding their way around the tools and they have gotten a lot better, none of that can be appreciated. Instead, people post a project, they get hissed at, and banned. It can cause a lot of hurt feelings, the rules are fuzzy and don't match how they're applied while the mods say they're crystal clear and even handed.
Meanwhile you go to a programming language community that is pro AI and people are just talking about programming languages and AI. There's not all these weird witch hunts and purity tests. I'd rather just stay away from all that, I prefer AI slop to that.
Not to mention the coolest people I've met in the past 2 years have all been hacking away at AI tech. Creative, enthusiastic, chill people I'm happy to associate with.