> we all adore the figurative hammer that helps driving nails into walls, but hate it when someone starts using it to drive nails into their or their neighbor’

> we all adore the figurative hammer that helps driving nails into walls, but hate it when someone starts using it to drive nails into their or their neighbor’s heads. But I think everyone, sooner or later, must draw one's personal red line in the way of a hammer that is set to replace humans or turn them into reverse centaurs who forget how to use their own brains - be it by its nature or by the pressure of someone's trillions of dollars. This analogy is quite beautiful. > The results were not long in coming, I already hear their complaints about getting lost in the codebase they themselves created, and getting dumber. I think that there are some ways that people are trying to create an AI-use policy, here is one that I found on hackernews which I found interesting: https://libls.org/ai-use https://libls.org/ai-use Basically, I think that if its a personal thing then sure all bets are off and you can use vibe-coding or whatever on personal projects or prototypes BUT, you can't really let AI do your job and somehow justify it and its costs (both in terms of tokens and the cost of tearing down the codebase with slop) and there should be a strict code of conduct regarding AI-use. I feel like we are going to see more attempts at trying to solidify a procedure regarding AI-use and for me, the libls.org/ai-use makes somewhat sense and I'd be curious to think about your opinion. That being said, it might not still be used within the structures of large companies because of the C-suite/investors issues that I mentioned but I am hopeful that eventually the mania regarding completely unfiltered AI-use slows down.