[torben-friis]

Yeah, the somelier argument.

It doesn't work for me sorry, because you wouldn't accept a book by John, a friend of Hemingway, as a Hemingway book no matter how much he assisted in editing. Nor a Picasso museum exhibition is by Marie because Marie chose which paintings to display.

Authorship and edition are different claims.

[kalcode]

I think a better analogy is cartoon or animated films. The artist, creator, engineer lays the key frames, the plot points, characters, etc. The team builds it. Fills in gaps, especially with direct input from the creator.

The creator still gets the credit.

LLMs can just be the part that accelerates laying the code down.

I think folks are just too emotional over a tool that we are ignoring drawing similarities on purpose. That or just different audiences, hackers vs professionals. The latter just meaning being payed and usually working in a team. The styles can be different and the value placed on crafted code vs results.

[queenkjuul]

> The creator still gets the credit.

Actually, they all get credit, at least in Hollywood

[em-bee]

they are, but when i read a scifi magazine like clarkesworld, i can trust that the editor made a good selection of stories. the work of the editor does have value. it's just a different value.

and how do you handle the reverse? use AI as the editor for a hemmingway book. is it still hemmingway?

[torben-friis]

>the work of the editor does have value. it's just a different value.

I mostly agree with that, with some caveats (in short, there's an uncomfortably thin line to appropriating the curated work, consciously or not).

>and how do you handle the reverse? use AI as the editor for a hemmingway book. is it still hemmingway?

I'd be comfortable saying at least that it's less misleading to declare that book as written by Hemingway. Doing so is more in line with the social expectations that come with having the author's signature on it.