[pmarreck]

You sound like someone who has literally zero understanding as to why that is a ridiculous comparison.

There are a thousand and one ways that I participate when building something with LLM assistance. Everything from ORIGINATING AN IDEA TO BEGIN WITH, to working on a thorough spec for it, to ensuring tests are actually valid, to asking for specific designs like hexagonal design, to specific things like benchmarks... literally ALL OF THE INITIATIVE IS MINE, AND ALL OF THE SUCCESS/FAILURE CONSEQUENCES ARE MINE, AND THAT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS

Please head towards a different career if you now have a stupid and contrived excuse not to continue working with the machines, because you sound like a whining child

And you're not answering the question, because you know it would end your point: WHO OR WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE IF THE CODE SUCCEEDS OR FAILS?

[eschaton]

I started working in the industry when you were able to buy a Lisp Machine new and have been studying AI even longer, and I’ve been very successful in it. I not only know what I’m talking about, I have the experience to back it up.

You sound like someone who’s deeply in denial about exactly how the LLM plagiarism machines work. You really do sound like a student defending themselves against a plagiarism charge by asserting that since they did the work of choosing the text to put into their essay and massaging the grammar so it fit, nobody should care where it came from.

[pmarreck]

By that definition, every single human who wrote a paper after reading a source document is a “plagiarism machine”

and I’m 53 and well remember Symbolics from freshman year at Cornell, in fact my application essay to it was about fuzzy logic (AI-tangential) and probably got me in, so I too am quite familiar

i’m also quite good at debate. the flaw in your logic is that plagiarism requires accountability and no machine can be accountable, only the human that used it, ergo, it is still the work of the human, because the human values, the human vets, the human initiates, and the human gains or loses based on the combined output, end of story; accelerated thought is still thought, and anyway, if a machine can replicate thought, then it wasn’t particularly original to begin with