[zzrrt]

I have a nitpick about about how AI is supposedly "designed to produce lies." That's pretty clearly false, unless you really believe the creators of AI are intentionally spreading lies through their products and that was their intention from the start. Call them careless or their technology inherently flawed if you want, but neither means "design[ing]" liar technology.

This might have been too petty to comment on, if it weren't for the irony that an arrogant human asserting that AIs are fallible made his own logical error or exaggeration in the same sentence. Was he designed to produce lies too?

Edit: I'm not really defending a layman using AI to produce patches, but the OSS developer's characterization is an overreach in the other direction. It's not a very useful heuristic either; at some point AI content is not going to be labeled or obvious, so it will have to be carefully evaluated for correctness and good-faith intention the same as human-generated content is.

[jdiff]

One of the very first examples published by GPT-2, the model that started the "too dangerous to be open anymore" trend, was a fake news article about the discovery of unicorns in the Scottish mountains. It's been part of OpenAI's narrative since the beginning.