• Ethan@programming.devEnglish
    0·
    3 days ago

    So because everyone you know who uses “AI” treats it that way, that necessarily means literally everyone who uses “AI” must treat it that way? Wow, such flawless logic.

    Some of us see LLMs for what they actually are - tools. Tools that can be useful, but are also dumb as fuck. Claude is fantastic for writing boring, boilerplate shit like unit tests and reasonably good at finding bugs in my code. But I am never going to take credit for its work. If for no other reason than “I wrote this” means “any mistakes in this are mine” and I am not going to take the blame for the dumb shit Claude does.

    • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
      0·
      3 days ago

      All I said was that people who “treat it as a tool” never shut up about it. Thanks for proving me right. Also:

      If for no other reason than “I wrote this” means “any mistakes in this are mine” and I am not going to take the blame for the dumb shit Claude does.

      For fuck’s sake, mate. Even the most permissive AI policies in FOSS require you to claim responsibility for anything your LLM generates. “A computer can never be held accountable, therefore I’d better let it write my software for me”? Bruh.

      • Ethan@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        3 days ago

        You: “Nobody who uses AI treats it like a tool, they treat it like an employee they can claim credit for.” Me: “I treat it as a tool.” You: “Wow, you won’t shut up about AI.”

        Wow, you are just the best at reasoned arguments!

        Kindly, fuck right off. (I’m blocking you, so any response you make won’t be for me.)