Comment by jpcompartir

6 months ago

Edit: OP confirms there's no AI-generated code, so do ignore me.

The code style - and in particular the *comments - indicate most of the code was written by AI. My apologies if you are not trying to hide this fact, but it seems like common decency to label that you're heavily using AI?

*Comments like this: "# Anonymous function"

10 comments

jpcompartir

Reply
robluxus  6 months ago

Interesting comment. Why is it common decency to call out how much ai was used for generating an artifact?

Is there a threshold? I assume spell checkers, linters and formatters are fair game. The other extreme is full-on ai slop. Where do we as a society should start to feel the need to police this (better)?

  • Sharlin  6 months ago

    The threshold should be exactly the same as when using another human's original text (or code) in your article. AI cannot have copyright, but for full disclosure one should act as if they did. Anything that's merely something that a human editor (or code reviewer) would do is fair game IMO.

    • robluxus  6 months ago

      Maybe OP just used an ai editor to add their silly comments, so that would be fair game I guess? Or some humans just add silly comments. The article didn't stand out to me as emberrassingly ai-written. Not an em dash in sight :)

      Edit: just found this disclaimer in the article:

      > I’ll show the generating R code, with a liberal sprinking of comments so it’s hopefully not too inscrutable.

      Doesn't come out the gate and say who wrote the comments but ostensibly OP is a new grad / junior, the commenting style is on-brand.

      3 replies →