[vga1]

>because if you could understand it, then you could write it yourself.

I accept most things you said there as valid opinions, but this is where the logic goes wrong.

I use LLMs to give me more from the only resource (now that my basic and mid-level needs are largely met) that ultimately matters: time. That means that I need to waste far less time in front of the computer, typing code, and use far more time doing more useful things, like hobbies, art, being with my children.

But as I said before, every project is obviously allowed to make their own rules, and contributors should obey those rules. There are plenty of projects that take both AI deniers and plenty of projects who prefer AI aficiandos.

At least for now. My belief is that one those groups will fade away like horseback riding did, but we'll see. Perhaps you have heard the famous stages quoted by many different people in different forms: first an idea is ridiculed, then it's attacked, then it's accepted. Some open-source communities have clearly entered the attacking phase in the last year so.

[em-bee]

you are saying that even if you understand the code, using an LLM saves you time writing it. fair enough[*]. the problem on my side still is that if you didn't write the code yourself, i have no evidence that you actually understood it. the only way to prove that you understand the code is to write it yourself. that's where the trust building comes in. you may actually understand the code, but i can't trust that you do.

[*] in my opinion it takes more time to verify that the LLM code is correct than it takes to write it yourself. based on that, if you save time using an LLM then you didn't spend enough time to verify that the code is correct.

Some open-source communities have clearly entered the attacking phase in the last year so

i feel it's more like defense, but yes.