[senordevnyc]

You don’t even know what we’re talking about in this thread, do you?

We’re talking about whether corporations are going to risk using LLMs in their codebase because of the theoretical legal risk that they might produce something that would fall under open source licenses, and be difficult to untangle later.

Regardless of what you think the morality is here, or what the legal situation turns out to be, this is already happening. The vast majority of corporate codebases are already “infected” by LLM outputs. Even at corporations where that’s not allowed, I promise there are devs using LLMs anyway.

[customguy]

Why repeat what you already said with more words, as if I can't read, only to leave out the bit that I responded to?

> we’re never going back.

As a prediction, this is worthless. If everybody thinks as you do, we won't, if nobody does, we will. So yes, this is purely about morality.

[CuriouslyC]

It's not just about collective agreement, there's a prisoner's dilemma in there.

If some segment of engineers uses agents and outperforms engineers who don't use agents, market forces will push all other engineers to use it over time. The only way we're going back is if we get concrete evidence that engineers using agents perform worse than engineers that don't, and that evidence isn't invalidated by improved models.

[senordevnyc]

If you think software engineering is ever going back to being widely done without AI…no idea what to tell you.