[Sharlin]

The threshold should be exactly the same as when using another human's original text (or code) in your article. AI cannot have copyright, but for full disclosure one should act as if they did. Anything that's merely something that a human editor (or code reviewer) would do is fair game IMO.

[robluxus]

Maybe OP just used an ai editor to add their silly comments, so that would be fair game I guess? Or some humans just add silly comments. The article didn't stand out to me as emberrassingly ai-written. Not an em dash in sight :)

Edit: just found this disclaimer in the article:

> I’ll show the generating R code, with a liberal sprinking of comments so it’s hopefully not too inscrutable.

Doesn't come out the gate and say who wrote the comments but ostensibly OP is a new grad / junior, the commenting style is on-brand.

[gjf]

Op here, no AI generated code, I'm wondering what gives the impression that it is?

I use Rmarkdown, so the code that's presented is also the same code that 'generates' the data/tables/graphs (source: https://github.com/gregfoletta/articles.foletta.org/blob/pro...).

[jpcompartir]

If you say there's no AI-generated code then I retract the original comment, nice work.

[jpcompartir]

That is not a disclaimer for generated code, it's referring to the code that generated the simulations/plots.

I had read that line before I commented, it was partly what sparked me to comment as it was a clear place for a disclaimer.

[jpcompartir]

Agree here - in a nutshell it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to intentionally pass off some other entity's work as one's own.

[coderatlarge]

i personally have no problem with people including AI gen’d code without attribution so long as they stand by it and own the consequences of what they submit. after all, we all know by now how much cajoling and insisting it takes to get any AI gen’d code to do what it’s actually requested and intended to do.

the only exception being contexts that explicitly prohibit it.