[pretoriusdre]

AI generated code is generally pretty good and incredibly fast.

Seeing this new phenomenon must be difficult for those people who have spent a long time perfecting their craft. Essentially, they might feel that their skillsets are being undermined. It would be especially hard for people who associate a lot of their self-identity with their job.

Being a purist is noble, but I think that this stance is foolish. Essentially, people who chose not to use AI code tools will be overtaken by the people who do. That's the unfortunate reality.

[loktarogar]

It's not a stance about the merits of AI generated code but about the legal status of it, in terms of who owns it and related concepts.

[pretoriusdre]

Yes the reasoning behind the decision is clear and as you described. But I would also make the point that the decision also comes with certain consequences, to which a discussion about merits is directly relevant.

[loktarogar]

> Essentially, people who chose not to use AI code tools will be overtaken by the people who do. That's the unfortunate reality.

Who is going to "overtake" QEMU, what exactly does that mean, and what will it matter if they are?

[danielbln]

OP said people. QEMU is not people.

[loktarogar]

We're talking about a decision that the people behind QEMU made that affects people, to which the consequences of made the discussion of merits "directly relevant".

If we're talking about something that neither involving QEMU nor the people behind it, where is the relevance? It's just a rant on AI at that point.