[NitpickLawyer]

> Why did I need to know that?

In a perfect world such a disclaimer would help anyone reading the output by setting expectations. We each have different experiences with this, and different levels of acceptance. Knowing that something is using generated content can help anyone either accept / skim / thoroughly review something.

The problem is that we're seeing lots of backlash, often for ideological reasons, or for outdated somewhat technical reasons, so people have less of an incentive to be honest, and tons of incentives to hide their use.

[eru]

Agreed.

No one minds when I credit a fuzzer for finding a bug. I hope we can use the same pragmatic attitude for LLM help.

[voidhorse]

Pragmatically, the range of application for a fuzzer and for an LLM are so widely different that I'm not sure it makes any kind of pragmatic sense to compare the two.

Also, I don't hear a lot of people credit fuzzers. I do hear a lot of people say things like "we are fuzzing the code"'just like they say "we are hammering the nails" and not "wow hammer great job getting that nail in place"

[minimaxir]

> so people have less of an incentive to be honest, and tons of incentives to hide their use

Case in point, the recent Hank Green incident. That was an own-goal of being too honest about LLM use and I suspect the industry learning will be "don't talk about the process." Larian Studios got in hot water earlier over a similar "we may use AI in preproduction" incident.