Post by @dropdrip@lemmy.ml

2026-08-29 05:27 UTC

I agree. Disclosure of A.I. use should be mandatory. My main concern with A.I. use is its ability to hide incompetence. If a new agent introduces code that was entirely written by illegal-software that violates copyright law–A.I.–then that should be made clear, even if competent-programmers review the new inclusion and approve of it. Otherwise people are left with the impression that this new agent is a competent programmer. A.I. use–undisclosed–creates false reputations. The disclosure being encouraged and not mandatory is purely to protect the egos of programmers currently utilizing A.I. products. However I do respect their decision and I maintain projects should be self governing.

Replies (1)

@amju_wolf@pawb.social 2026-08-29 09:51

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.

Open ##4605291