> Capable people with decades of experience can successfully automate away a lot of tedious work, and still end up with a final product identical to what they would have done by hand.
Come on, I don't think the last part is remotely true. It's certainly an extraordinary claim that would need to be backed by research. If it were really true that the final product was identical to what the developer would have written by hand, that alone would solve most of the deeply problematic ethical issues that seem inherent to LLMs, but I think it's bullshit, and moreover there's no way to accomplish what's claimed (except for simple autocompletion, which is a very special case).
There's also this:
> The license of source code they produce is legally unclear.
If you really think that, how is it not an immediate blocker for LLM-generated contributions? Aren't you putting the whole project in legal jeopardy?
Come on, I don't think the last part is remotely true. It's certainly an extraordinary claim that would need to be backed by research. If it were really true that the final product was identical to what the developer would have written by hand, that alone would solve most of the deeply problematic ethical issues that seem inherent to LLMs, but I think it's bullshit, and moreover there's no way to accomplish what's claimed (except for simple autocompletion, which is a very special case).
There's also this:
> The license of source code they produce is legally unclear.
If you really think that, how is it not an immediate blocker for LLM-generated contributions? Aren't you putting the whole project in legal jeopardy?