• refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    My point was that

    That’s all fine and dandy, I just don’t agree with simultaneously saying “make it indistinguishable if you’re gonna use AI” in addition to “don’t use AI”, since as you say there is no effective difference if you can’t tell, so why should it still be disallowed? Surely we can come up with some middle ground to describe the intent of the rule better than silently implying “just don’t get caught”?

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Well the idea is to NOT say “make it indistinguishable” (even if that’s inevitably the practical upshot) because the second you explicitly allow “indistinguishable” you open a can of worms arguing over what that means.

      The same result unfortunately seems to be found by any attempt seeking this “middle ground,” because there’s always a cohort implicitly requesting that project maintainers bless their low-effort use of AI. (As to why this is, I’m not sure, but based on what I’ve seen would guess it’s because the AI use lets these individuals cosplay as developers.)

      Regardless, that result is a huge influx of PRs which have obviously been submitted by individuals incapable of understanding, fixing, or taking responsibility for what they’ve submitted, which is an immediately intractable problem for project maintainers who already began with limited time to review PRs which, in spite of their varying quality, could at least be assumed to be understood by the contributor. Allowing any amount AI enables some amount of obvious (read: unfiltered/unreviewed) generated code, every bit of which is potentially problematic.