unknownfuture

That's not what we're talking about.

This is a question of copyright eligibility in the first place. An excellent recent(ish) example is Oracle v Google wherein the former claimed copyright over the Java APIs. That particular litigation went on for years and ultimately went to the Supreme Court (though it ultimately ended on a fair use argument and the issue of API copyright eligibility was never settled).

We can probably assume similar high profile cases in the future that turn on quantifying the level of human contribution in code produced through the use of AI.

As for patents, it's literally that easy. Attacking authorship of a patent is an excellent way to invalidate it. It's why any company with a serious patent program requires staff to keep supporting notes for their work and confirm authorship in writing as part of the filing process.

Have you been involved in copyright or patent litigation?

Because it's not that easy.

I also love how it'll build local plans with phases, tasks, or decisions, then reference those numbers in those same useless comments.

Regarding their leadership, I'd argue the latter implies the former.

So yeah I'd say they're out of their depth.

Kinda begging the question, aren't we here?

But it isn't a loss for any employers. They're not being sandbagged in any way. It's the path they've chosen, knowingly and willingly.

There's a reason they're trying to replace humans with AI: they just want outcomes. People learning and growing is only useful if it generates better outcomes. If you can get the same thing with a bunch of reverse centaurs, from a corporate perspective that's better: labour becomes more fungible and you can spend even less on training and investment in staff (assuming you ever did). And do it right and those folks will just train your machines to make them even better (see: Meta capturing worker activity and reallocating large numbers of staff to data labelling).

Plenty of regulations in many many fields are evidence based.

Sure, many are not.

But to make such a blanket statement is absurd.

Yes but ultimately legal isn't putting policy into practice, which is my point.

> HR is a bit different and strange to bring up, especially considering I used enterprise architect as an example. AI safety would presumably be not cross-cutting for all domains at a company

Frankly, you're nitpicking the analogy while missing the broader point it's serving to make.

I take it you've never worked with an in-house legal counsel, accounting department, or good ol' fashioned HR?

Specifically because in these companies they aren't optimizing for ethical behaviour.

They're optimizing for profit. And those damn ethicists just get in the way.

Funny thing: that doesn't typically happen to the internal legal counsel or accounting that's responsible for guiding processes/practices that are required for compliance or similar.

Why?

Because there's consequences.

AI ethics is first and foremost about setting policy and advising on how those systems should be constructed.

This is because ethics isn't some separable function. It threads through everything an organization does. You can't just treat it as another department/function/unit if you want any hope of actually making it work.

Your disdain is showing.

That you jump immediately to criticizing AI ethicists as counting angels on pins and implying that's why they left OpenAI rather than OpenAI not being a place where AI ethics is a priority is, well, let's say generous to these AI labs.

... plan mode?

The OP claims AI accelerates non-coding parts of the job, too, and so the article is misguided.

I ask for evidence.

In response you give me... code output metrics?

This isn't exactly novel territory, here, Simon. Let's not pretend I'm asking for something strange, unprecedented, or unreasonable.

Show me the evidence that AI has an impact on productivity when doing design work. Or reducing meeting load.

My own experience is that AI doesn't tighten the design cycle, and in fact might extend it by encouraging gold plating.

The result is that the tool gradually morphs into the thing I need rather than me having to adapt myself to whatever new thing Anthropic or OpenAI comes up with.

I can also feel confident that the thing it becomes is what I actually need and not what maximizes token usage...

Reading tests and actually catching issues requires a heck of a lot of effort. IME code reviews of tests are often more laborious than reviewing the code itself since so much if it is reasoning about corner cases.

I'm not saying don't do it, but the LOE is high. Done well I'd argue it runs close to the effort involved in just authoring those tests by hand.

And that's ignoring that the "vibe all the things" crowd is explicitly telling people not to read the code. At all.

(And if you think I'm exaggerating: an exec where I work decided to own rebuilding one of our services. They told me how recently the LLM generated multiple thousands of lines of code and they pushed it with minimal review, figuring we'll just fix the bugs as they happen...).

"These models are probabilistic, you shouldn't blindly trust them in spaces where accuracy is really important" seems like pretty sound advice to me.

You mean your particular version of it.

It's interesting to see you consistently missing this point.

You've decided LLMs are clearly more than just complex but mindless statistical models.

You've decided that based on, it seems, the very impressive things these tools are capable of.

Therefore if anyone claims they're just mindless stastical models--with or without any attached judgement as to their actual utility or usefulness--then they are ipso facto wrong.

(And yes I just used endashes, damnit!)

That's on you.

It is in fact possible to simultaneously believe that LLMs are mindless token predictors and that they're enormously powerful.

These are entirely orthogonal beliefs.

Heck you could equally believe that LLMs represent true emerging AGI and that they still remain deeply flawed and are only an incremental step along the path of automation.

Or somewhere in between.

And discussing that space of possibilities is, I'd hope, precisely what HN is for.

I get the impression you want me to concede that the particular points of view you disagree with aren't worthy of representation here on HN.

I'm not going to do that.

My point is it's silly to whine that HN is a place where multiple points of view on the topic are aired out and discussed.

If you want a personal echo chamber where only your own beliefs are affirmed and anything else is flagged off or downvoted, I'm sure you can go find one or, worst case, vibe code one into existence.