“No enforcement” is a complete non sequitur. It’s a moderated code base lol, they have absolute enforcement and absolute discretion.
And as I already said, if you actually review the code to the point where you’re sure it’s quality and nobody can tell the difference, then obviously nobody is gonna care if you wrote it one letter at a time, pasted it from the internet, had an ai draft it, or even got a lucky shot with a 100% ai generated output.
It’s basically similar to public intoxication laws. We can sit here all day arguing about the myriad of ways you can “cheat” the system by discretely getting drunk and….behaving normally? As if that would be some huge “gotcha” that proves regulations are inherently irrelevant?
You’re also ignoring the fact that llm code is emphatically unlikely to be quality (again, similar to how drunk people are unlikely to behave). These policies keep popping up precisely because people can tell, and at some point it’s just easier to blanket ban a process that produces 95% trash. If you’re one of the “responsible users” then you have nothing to worry about.
would you accept disorderly behavior from someone even if they were really sober?
Nope, especially not if I had absolute enforcement and absolute discretion. Again, it’s just another non sequitur. You’re semantically trying to push the fringes for exploitations and loopholes while totally ignoring the actual situation and the actual procedural benefits such a policy confer to the project’s management
“No enforcement” is a complete non sequitur. It’s a moderated code base lol, they have absolute enforcement and absolute discretion.
And as I already said, if you actually review the code to the point where you’re sure it’s quality and nobody can tell the difference, then obviously nobody is gonna care if you wrote it one letter at a time, pasted it from the internet, had an ai draft it, or even got a lucky shot with a 100% ai generated output.
It’s basically similar to public intoxication laws. We can sit here all day arguing about the myriad of ways you can “cheat” the system by discretely getting drunk and….behaving normally? As if that would be some huge “gotcha” that proves regulations are inherently irrelevant?
You’re also ignoring the fact that llm code is emphatically unlikely to be quality (again, similar to how drunk people are unlikely to behave). These policies keep popping up precisely because people can tell, and at some point it’s just easier to blanket ban a process that produces 95% trash. If you’re one of the “responsible users” then you have nothing to worry about.
Nope, especially not if I had absolute enforcement and absolute discretion. Again, it’s just another non sequitur. You’re semantically trying to push the fringes for exploitations and loopholes while totally ignoring the actual situation and the actual procedural benefits such a policy confer to the project’s management