I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.
But AI assistance can also mean a lot of different things, from outright vibecoding through autocomplete up to only asking it to so review. It diminishes the human work in the eyes of other people, because a simple disclaimer doesn’t distinguish between the work done, and also encourages people to point out to AI as a scapegoat for their mistakes.
Good code always was and should always be one where a human is fully responsible for it; if you decide to vibecode and happens to end up with perfect code, good; if you write it fully yourself but it’s crap it doesn’t absolve you that you didn’t use AI…
It’s a tool, so use it responsibly like any other tool and stand behind your code no matter what tools you used.
There’s a difference between “not being able to catch everyone” and having effectively no way to catch anyone.
And yes, unfortunately there are plenty of laws with the same issue (especially here and in the past decade or two) and it sucks - it only teaches people to ignore rules and a lot of them make you a criminal for no reason.
But the issue is that in practise, there is no viable way to verify wether or not AI has been used at all. In other words, the disclosure of AI use entirely depends on the person providing the code, wether disclosure is mandated or not.
If there was enforcment to disclose AI use, it would create a false assumption that code which claims no AI use, is verified to contain mo AI use, which again, cannot be verified by anyone.
So it’s not that it’s hard to enforce, it’s not that it’s impossible to enforce 100%, it’s that there currently is no viable way to enforce it at all.
look at visual studio’s Intellisense and compare it to the last version that didn’t advertise Ai, there aren’t that many functional differences and if you don’t keep up with the marketing you could very easily miss that it is Ai powered.
I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.
Agreed. I an aware a lot of people contributed to the Linux kernel, without disclosing they used ai.
Good code always was and should always be one where a human is fully responsible for it; if you decide to vibecode and happens to end up with perfect code, good; if you write it fully yourself but it’s crap it doesn’t absolve you that you didn’t use AI…
Yeah. I do not blame the ai for writing the code, but rather the person to accept and push that code even if they know it is crap.
That can quickly get complicated, and more importantly noone does that.
People who want to do it generally. Just call for a “metadata tag” in the commit.
The thing is, what are you actually trying to achieve with this disclosure? How does it help you?
If you’re going to treat AI assisted code the same way you treat human code (with a ton of scrutiny - which you absolutely should), then what is the point?
Do you also want to know what IDE was used, which autocomplete engine, or what OS?
I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.
But AI assistance can also mean a lot of different things, from outright vibecoding through autocomplete up to only asking it to so review. It diminishes the human work in the eyes of other people, because a simple disclaimer doesn’t distinguish between the work done, and also encourages people to point out to AI as a scapegoat for their mistakes.
Good code always was and should always be one where a human is fully responsible for it; if you decide to vibecode and happens to end up with perfect code, good; if you write it fully yourself but it’s crap it doesn’t absolve you that you didn’t use AI…
It’s a tool, so use it responsibly like any other tool and stand behind your code no matter what tools you used.
If people thought “its impossible to catch everyone so why bother trying to catch anyone at all” when making laws, no laws would exist
There’s a difference between “not being able to catch everyone” and having effectively no way to catch anyone.
And yes, unfortunately there are plenty of laws with the same issue (especially here and in the past decade or two) and it sucks - it only teaches people to ignore rules and a lot of them make you a criminal for no reason.
But there are ways to catch AI use
…elaborate? Anything that’s actually reliable?
But the issue is that in practise, there is no viable way to verify wether or not AI has been used at all. In other words, the disclosure of AI use entirely depends on the person providing the code, wether disclosure is mandated or not.
If there was enforcment to disclose AI use, it would create a false assumption that code which claims no AI use, is verified to contain mo AI use, which again, cannot be verified by anyone.
So it’s not that it’s hard to enforce, it’s not that it’s impossible to enforce 100%, it’s that there currently is no viable way to enforce it at all.
THIS, THIS, THIS
Basically, a nirvana fallacy/perfect solution fallacy.
https://deadsimpletech.com/blog/no-such-thing-as-just-a-tool
look at visual studio’s Intellisense and compare it to the last version that didn’t advertise Ai, there aren’t that many functional differences and if you don’t keep up with the marketing you could very easily miss that it is Ai powered.
Agreed. I an aware a lot of people contributed to the Linux kernel, without disclosing they used ai.
Yeah. I do not blame the ai for writing the code, but rather the person to accept and push that code even if they know it is crap.
So just declare how you used the tool?
Nonsense. Doing so is clearly abdicating the responsibility that you’re saying people need to have, and basically admitting you’re a bad developer.
That can quickly get complicated, and more importantly noone does that.
People who want to do it generally. Just call for a “metadata tag” in the commit.
The thing is, what are you actually trying to achieve with this disclosure? How does it help you?
If you’re going to treat AI assisted code the same way you treat human code (with a ton of scrutiny - which you absolutely should), then what is the point?
Do you also want to know what IDE was used, which autocomplete engine, or what OS?