4 ms·
Exactly, people could have "consulted Google" or "consulted stack overflow" and had the same issues. It's about the end result, not how the code got to that end
by colordrops 6mo ago
Exactly, people could have "consulted Google" or "consulted stack overflow" and had the same issues. It's about the end result, not how the code got to that end result, and the submitter is responsible to make sure of the quality of the submission regardless of whether AI was used or not.
To reject submissions where the dev "consulted ai" is like rejecting iron ore that was mined by a machine rather than a human. The quality of the ore is what should be measured, not how it was obtained.
- api 6mo agoI agree, but the problem comes back to how to evaluate quality at scale. That is very hard. It’s easier to just say no AI because that at least turns off the fire hose.
- colordrops 6mo agoIt sounds like they are even rejecting submissions where they even get a whiff of ai being "consulted" though. That's not quite the same as turning off the firehose.
- api 6mo agoNo that’s just reactionary. The discourse around AI in the arts, and other creative and craft fields, is utterly identical to the discourse around photography when it came out to the point that you could search and replace terms and have the same dialogue.