[matheusmoreira]

You're not supposed to join. You said you didn't know why I was defensive. I showed you those posts as evidence of the stigma attached to LLMs and their usage. Now you know why.

[kelnos]

Maybe you should step back and see if there's a reason why there's a stigma, instead of stubbornly insisting that there's nothing different between submitting work that you wrote yourself, vs. work done by an LLM.

[matheusmoreira]

Maybe you should stop making excuses for the summary dismissal of people's years old projects as slop on the basis that an LLM touched it.

[eschaton]

It doesn’t help your case that your response is to say “well I’ll just hide my use.” That’s fraud.

[matheusmoreira]

No.

[eschaton]

Yes.

[int_19h]

You're not entitled to know what specific tools were used to produce something, generally speaking.

In the absence of such an entitlement, not volunteering to disclose the tools used is not fraud.

[Ronsenshi]

Don't think calling a PR written by AI is the same thing as using a "tool". If code is largely generated by AI means that AI was an author and not you with some tool.

[matheusmoreira]

At what point does it cease to be AI generated and become my own work?

If LLM generates some code but I edit it, does it become my own work? How much editing must be done?

How large is "largely" ? Exactly how many bits of information must come from my fingers tapping the keyboard in order for me to qualify for authorship? Be precise.

If I write something but the LLM polishes it up a bit, is it still my work? Or is it AI generated?