2026-08-29 09:51 UTC
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.
Replies (2)
-
@atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 2026-08-29 15:16
I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it. If people thought “its impossible to catch everyone so why bother trying to catch anyone at all” when making laws, no laws would exist
-
@naught101@lemmy.world 2026-08-29 22:57
because a simple disclaimer doesn’t distinguish between the work done, So just declare how you used the tool? and also encourages people to point out to AI as a scapegoat for their mistakes. Nonsense. Doing so is clearly abdicating the responsibility that you’re saying people need to have, and basically admitting you’re a bad developer.