This is only true if you weren't paid for your work all those years (which, then, it was just a hobby).

But more importantly, this is only relevant for vomiting boilerplate code. I don't know about you but I always did a lot more than that.

Sales taxes are regressive and nonsensical, why punish people because they contribute to the economy by buying stuff? Just do income tax.

I don't disagree with the first part, but income tax falls into the exact same logic of "why punish people because they contribute to the economy by [working]?"

Well, we do need taxes. Land taxes are fine too I guess, but I doubt they'll catch on in North America (too many politicians own real estate).

You don't contribute by buying stuff but by producing it. And the regressive effect can be reduced by having different rates depending on the type of product.

hahah what are you talking about, there's no such thing as long term!

Surely you mean managers, right? Most developers I interact with would love to do things the right way, but there's just no time, we have to chase this week's priority!

Jesus I just had flashbacks from my last jobs. Non-technical founder always telling me I was being pessimistic (there were no technical founders). It's just not that simple Karen!

Is there a way to ban specific users in your GitHub project?

(I prefer GitLab, I'm sure if it had projects that are as popular it would be similarly inundated.)

IIRC if one of the maintainers of a project blocks a user that prevents them from participating in issues and PRs.

For bigger projects with many maintainers that can also lead to problems if people use the block function as liberally as on Twitter.

Welcome to the future! Do you feel disrupted yet?

I think it's glass actually? Or something like glass.

I can't believe all these qualia questions have not evolved in centuries (or at least, the common discourse arond them hasn't). We all have similar rods and cones in our eyes. We have common kinds of color blindness. What other reasonable conclusion is there but that my red is your red? All the machinery is similar enough.

I suppose it's because people associate so much of who they are to the subjectivity of their experience. If I'm not the only one to see and taste the world as I do, am I even special? (The answer is no, and that there are more important things in life than being special.)

I see that you're not alone in your position clearly, but still, this is such a strange take to me. Do people not seriously not see, nay, instinctively understand the ontological difference between the difference between using code someone no longer understands and deploying code no one ever understood?

I'm not saying the code should be up to any specific standards, just that someone should know what's going on.

I don't actually see the difference. If someone writes the code and understands it but then becomes unavailable, what's the practical difference with no one having understood it?

Someone at some point had a working mental model of the code and a reputation to protect and decided that it was good enough to merge. Someone vetted and hired that person. There's a level of familiarity and history that leads others to extend trust.

The way I see it is that LLMs and humans are not inherently different. They are simply on different segments of a very complex spectrum of sensory input and physical output. Over time this position on the spectrum changes, for both LLMs and humans too.

With this in mind, it's all matter of what are your metrics for "trust". If you are placing trust on a human employee because it was hired, does this mean the trust comes from the hiring process? What if the LLM passed went through that too?

About familiarity and history: we are at the point were many people will start working at a new place were the strangers are the humans, you will actually be more familiar and history with LLM tools than actual humans, so how do you take that into consideration?

Obviously this is a massive simplification and reduction of the problem, but I'm still not convinced humans get a green checkmark of quality and trust just because they are humans and were hired by a company.

> Someone at some point had a working mental model of the code and a reputation to protect

This isn’t always true in absolute terms. In many places and projects it’s about doing a good enough job to be able to ship whatever the boss said and getting paid. That might not even involve understanding everything properly either.

Plenty of people view software development as just a stepping stone to management as well.

With reading enough code it becomes apparent that the code quality that AI generates will often be similar or better to human developers, even if the details and design are sometimes demented.

You could never have the same amount of trust in LLM-generated code as in a human developer, even if you wrote a large amount of tests for it. There will always be one more thing that you didn't think to test. But the many reports of massive security holes in AI coding tools and their products show that nobody even bothers with testing. Neither the vendors nor the users.

One of the implementations underwent analysis.

Surely they both go through that before being merged? If not then I think the the issue is somewhere other than I'd being suggested.