Comment by Orphis
2 days ago
At the same time, how can a human know if they accidentally rewrote exactly some code they read in the past from a codebase with an incompatible license?
Accidental copies happen all the time in code, music and art. Not all of it is necessarily super original, but that's beside the point and it happens.
So while we think we can hold AI tools to higher standards than humans, they are still modeled after human thinking and will make the same mistakes. Is this really the right thing to do and is it entirely practical?
This argument is almost algorithmic: Take the concern about <TECH>, substitute 'human'. Also, another popular response: don't address questions, instead try to put the person asking on the defensive.
The main point is the implicit argument that humans and machines are equivalent.
Sure. But in the end, it's just a tool that is used to assign blame when there are issues, and humans are more comfortable when another human is to blame rather than a machine as it means they are still in control (or have the illusion of).