![Great job 👏 [Twonks]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/69fd8e3b-4aea-4e91-addf-bd8fafc25787.jpeg){kind=link}
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/49392677
Twonks | Bluesky
Transcript
TW😶NKS
A comic in four panels:
Panel 1. White text on black
AI Design Logic
Panel 2. A guy sits in a restaurant at a table with a checkered table cloth. A waiter stands near, hands behind back waiting attentively.
Guy: Get me a cheese pizza
Panel 3. The waiter returns with a pizza in hand.
Panel 4. The guy gestures proudly at the pizza. The waiter looks less than amused.
Guy: Wow, look what I made!
Those are all false equivalencies. All of those are tools to supplement a job. Using AI to vibe code an app is not a tool, it’s wait service, like the comic illustrates.
If you auto generated an entire message, like prompting AI to write you an email, then no, you didn’t write a message. If you auto complete words that you intended to write, then you used tools to help write a message that you created.
A hammer is a tool to build something. Vibe coding is like buying an IKEA piece of furniture and claiming you built it. You didn’t build anything, you assembled someone else’s build. If you had a magic hammer trained on other people’s work and you told it to build a chair, then no, you would not have built a chair.
Computer software is again a tool to complete a job. If you do the engineering, design, and build the antenna, then that’s like programming, yes you designed an antenna. If you tell the software you want an antenna and it generates plans you didn’t design an antenna, you ordered plans for one.
If you ask AI to kill someone, that’s like taking a hammer and killing someone. Yes, you used a tool to kill someone.
It’s the complete generation of work and the claim that someone did it themselves that is what AI works are at their core. There is a small skill to prompting most effectively, but that’s not creating anything. It’s at most building an outline for something. Skilled developers can review code and make corrections, but they didn’t create anything.
If asking AI to kill someone is using a tool to kill someone, then I would have used a tool to build X - because that’s like using a hammer to build something (your words)
That’s inconsistent logic
You’re liable for the murder that you ordered. This is a legal distinction where building something isn’t. Technically if you order AI to kill someone and it goes off and does it, you didn’t kill someone, you prompted it to. This is all theoretical as AI doesn’t have the ability outright kill someone, so this is all under the presumption that AI has a physical means of killing someone unattended.
If this AI were more like a gun where you pointed it at someone and commanded it to shoot, then you killed someone use AI as a weapon.
I will say there is nuance that can be debated between when AI use crosses from a supplemental tool to vibe coding. I don’t have a clear cut answer on that and don’t have the drive to go into it further, but I will concede that.
It’s more that ordering a crime is still illegal. If you tell a person to go and kill someone else you’re still liable. In the case of using an LLM, considering our governments are trying to keep these companies not liable for anything, even assisting children to kill themselves, you’ll likely be judged as a killer yourself anyway. But if the LLM company had some degree of responsibility, you’d still be held as ultimately responsible because the LLM presumably didn’t come up with the crime, you did.
To reiterate what the other person was saying, if you print your own 3D model you can say you created the thing in addition to printing it. If you just download a model, regardless of license, and do no modifications, you just printed someone else’s creation.
When you get an LLM to generate code for you, you can abbreviate that as “I generated this”, which will be understood as using gen AI, saying you created it is misleading as we understand that as meaning you coded it yourself. Even technical leads shouldn’t go around claiming everyone’s work, their credit extends to their designs, direct contributions, leadership, mentoring, etc, they’re not the sole creators of whatever project they lead.
Working exclusively with generated code would make you closer to a maintainer from a library you didn’t write, you can put in the effort to understand what’s going on and maybe even be confident enough that it’s good for what it is, but that doesn’t make you the creator, the same way reviewing a PR from a colleague doesn’t make you the author of their code.
It’s not about what’s legal, it’s that computers can’t be held responsible for things
How small should the pieces be before you can say you built it? Then it’s ship of Theseus
Right, because murder is equivalent to creative work.
But you have a point. They didn’t actually kill. They ordered a hit. Still culpable, but without the effort or skill to actually do the deed themselves.