How do you plan to prove that people have to prove that their code is written for their own purposes? How do you plan to prove that half or a third was written for their own purposes? I still don’t quite understand what all the fuss is about… A while ago, I had a short chat with @Tibi, who was defending the thesis that models shouldn’t support someone else’s work. I tried to explain to him (I hope successfully) that from an epistemological perspective, it doesn’t really matter whether the code is written half or all by a model, because the model can’t grasp your idea. It can only shape it (or, for example, in my case, a much better shape, with heavy shader calculations, and I have absolutely no problem with that; the machine is more efficient than me, not at all), but it can’t capture that elusive element that creates the work. I agree that such a tag will be rarely used, as there’s no stronger drug than self-love, and a change in mindset is a generational shift. If I see a project here or on Discord that’s very advanced, and I see a question related to it that’s trivial, which undoubtedly indicates the use of superpowers, should such a sixteen- or eighteen-year-old be stigmatized? Of course not, they simply deployed in a reality that offers such a convenience and uses it. Recently, a question about something related to Three.js was asked on SO. In a comment, one of the most experienced users replied to the question’s author, “…Do this and that, and ask the AI about the rest…” and the OP replied, “…that he never uses AI because he likes to know how things work…” That’s precisely the wrong mindset, ok fine, we all want understand, but it can be more efficient. If you can optimize your time, do it! You say that by proving the self-existence of an action, we imply our authenticity. Brother! You’d have to shut down 95% of universities with that logic. It seems @PavelBoytchev is a scientist and will likely confirm this claim about the scientific community. You’re using strong terms like “fraud,” but I’ll cite an example I cited in a conversation with Tibi—when the Mesopotamians stopped pushing their cube blocks and switched to spheres, did that make them frauds? You don’t realize how much I would have given to have the same opportunities in 2010 as today’s freelancers or studios using models. I’d probably be richer, maybe just as stupid as I am now, but with money, it would be sweet stupidity. I also don’t understand (or maybe I do a little) this glorification of “effort”… Doesn’t a lion on the savannah choosing the weakest of foals to expend the least energy at the expense of the best prey already make him a lion and king of the savannah? It’s as if the philosophy of Antisthenes was still alive, as he chose the glorification of effort as the goal of his life and his system. I also see it as a kind of empowerment as a three-dimensional Jesus Christ, where we, carrying this cross, sitting for 15-16 hours on some implementation, cannot, or at least should not, take the shortcut of putting it aside. This will prevent us from experiencing salvation. Brother, as I sit for the fourteenth or fifteenth hour on some project, where my spine becomes one with the back of my head, the last thing on my mind is the prestige of being authentic.
It seems to me that we should stop having an AI complex and start using it consciously and honestly. Okay, the model wrote a chunk of code for you or corrected it. Understand it and implement it—that should be our mindset. If you add an AI tag to a post, and something like my project was created with AI, it will even add two such tags to the post. But look at it this way: stigmatizing such behavior or calling it cheating won’t help implement the author’s idea, it really won’t make it any easier, because, as you rightly pointed out, people won’t use this option anyway, fearing a patch, a half-developer, or a casual developer playing the big player.
