• Taasz/Woof@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    I think “the submitter is entirely responsible for their code” is a very reasonable position.

    Especially since I just don’t see how it’s possible to fully prevent people from using AI if they want to use it. Yes a lot of code might be more obvious and could be rejected with an “absolutely no AI policy” but some people will submit perfectly good code where AI was involved in some way.

      • Taasz/Woof@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Plus if the general requirement is ‘high quality code’ then that automatically excludes the majority of LLM usage where people just vibe code it and rely heavily on the LLM to do the work. VS someone writing their own code while using an LLM to help find problems.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          Well… IMO, there’s a whole spectrum between “very rare LLM brianstorming/troubleshooting” and “I don’t know how to code” vibe-coding, and Im not sure what the distribution looks like.

          Personally, I get LLMs to generate boilerplate, formatting, and functions, but manually write plenty and audit/assemble all the pieces myself. But I would not call myself a vibecoder; I loathe vibe coding.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah I often tell a local LLM to find problems with my code before I submit it. It’s essentially a round 0 reviewer, trained on previous (human) reviews of the same project.