[johnfn]

You are using "script-kiddy" as an ad hominem rather than making an argument with proper justification. "script-kiddy" refers to website vandalism and cracking. That has nothing to do with using AI to learn what rev-parse does.

Learning about `git rev-parse` through documentation and learning about `git rev-parse` through AI fundamentally have the same outcome at the end of the day: you have learned how to use `git rev-parse`.

[hajile]

I’m using it as a pejorative (not an ad hominem) for people who blindly trust unknown code because they don’t have any real understanding. It’s a shortcut for a whole, well-known and obvious argument about the danger of playing with things being your understanding.

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/script-kiddies.html

If you are using AI to learn, understand, and verify what it spit out, by definition, you aren’t a script kiddy. My argument was about how you use AI rather than a commentary on if you should.

[johnfn]

It is an ad hominem. "you shouldn't be turning into a script-kiddy" is guilt by association, see Wikipedia[1] or ask AI[2]. If you think that learning from AI is dangerous you should articulate why you think that. I find it neither "well-known" or "obvious".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_associatio... [2]: https://chatgpt.com/share/6817b741-8a80-800c-8d5d-1b315806dd...

[skydhash]

> Learning about `git rev-parse` through documentation and learning about `git rev-parse` through AI fundamentally have the same outcome at the end of the day: you have learned how to use `git rev-parse`.

But with a non-zero chance of hallucination.

[Jensson]

If you learn many things that way the chance grows to 100%.