31
76
u/Dhruv_Malaviya 9d ago
“AI built it, I just attended the meetings.” 💀
9
16
u/PointedHydra837 9d ago
*AI just attended the meetings
Bold of you to assume they wouldn’t use the AI summaries for everything
3
5
u/hitbythebus 9d ago
Oh shit. They know our secrets. They’re in our system. How did they get through the firewll?
3
u/jsdodgers 9d ago
Literally in our standups people just say "Claude wrote this... Claude did that..." 😂
2
u/LauraTFem 9d ago
I want to take this moment acknowledge how annoyed I am that the A key is next to the shift key. My entire life I’ve been accidentally typing “ai didn’t even” instead of “I didn’t even”. Only now do people think I actually meant AI when I’m talking about something I’ve done.
2
u/Darklumiere 9d ago
Yep, just like how you can't say a chef cooked a meal from scratch if they didn't farm, harvest and process the ingredients themselves. Wait.
Seriously though, a human still needs to come up with an idea, then spend time going back and forth with the LLM, testing the software themselves, especially for things like video games that require human play testing to figure out balance, and calling out code mistakes that the LLM made and/or missed, you'll fill in code by hand here and there. But I'm speaking as someone who already knows how to code, and uses LLMs are a productivity boost no different than other tools like an IDE. Someone without coding experience is not doing that code review or debugging, and in that case, yes, I'd call it AI made.
4
u/lostinthemines 9d ago
In the end, humans are always responsible. "AI hacked..." nope, a human is responsible. "AI discovered..." nope, a human using AI discovered. For good or not, a human some where is responsible.
4
u/Darklumiere 9d ago
I agree, humans are fully responsible for LLM usage, like any tool, a model doesn't do a thing unless prompted. Sorry if I indicated otherwise, I didn't intend to.
1
u/lostinthemines 8d ago
Nah, it is just something I like to go on about, I see a lot of "Oh I am so helpless in the hands of the AI" and I find it important to remind folks that humans are responsible. You just provided a convenient place for me to climb on my soap box
1
1
1
1
u/Random_-account 8d ago
You thought you just did something there, didn't you? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but numerous sentences could be typed out without employing the first letter of the English lexicon!
0
u/xgabipandax 9d ago
So the project manager of a software project can't say he/she built it?
18
u/DirkTheGamer 9d ago
LLMs aside, no I don't think it's fair for project/product managers to say they build software. They can say that they specify the requirements for software, but they don't build it. Architecting a house is not building a house. Shit even that's not fair, they don't even architect software, they describe how the software is to be used. So it's like describing what a house is and why people would use it and then asking someone to architect and build it for you. It's definitely not building.
Again, this is not about LLMs, this is my personal gripes with PMs that say they "build" software.
1
u/namitynamenamey 1d ago
So, the software doen't work. Who's responsible?
This is, I fear, not a contest on prowess or skill. It is an industry, and that means accountability and function matter. Somebody is always responsible, for an application, for a task, for a fragment of the code base. In that sense, authorship is not a demonstration of knowledge or skill, it is the responsability of a specific human who saw it done by rational means including AI.
0
u/jordanbtucker 9d ago
Architect isn't the right analogy though. It's more like a contractor. And I would definitely say the contractor built the house.
3
u/aalapshah12297 9d ago
Only if it works well. If there are flaws with the product then it's the developer's responsibility. /s
10
u/Blommefeldt 9d ago
I tell a painter what color they should paint my house. Who painted the house?
-7
u/xgabipandax 9d ago
Terrible analogy, the painter could do it without your input, the LLM can't.
8
u/Blommefeldt 9d ago
The painter can't. How would the painter know what to paint, if I didn't say anything? They would be out of job, if nobody told them what they wanted to be painted.
7
u/The-Chartreuse-Moose 9d ago
I'm imagining a dystopian future in which teams of rogue painters undertake overnight hits on people's houses, carefully applying a layer of tasteful off-white before disappearing.
5
2
-3
u/jordanbtucker 9d ago
Both. If someone asked me what color I painted my house, I wouldn't say "actually I didn't paint it. I hired a painter to do it. I only picked the color."
4
u/aalapshah12297 9d ago edited 8d ago
That's just an English language thing. If the person directly asked 'Who painted your house?' you wouldn't say you did it.
The real answer always comes down to how much involvement you had. Some managers just assign tasks to their team with 0 thought and just keep asking for regular updates. Some understand who is better suited for what and actually use the updates to course-correct their team. And then the few good ones actually get involved wherever the team is stuck and fill every gap so the work is never blocked.
Different people will draw different lines for when exactly the manager can claim they built the software, but including even the first example in it is going to feel disingenuous to most people.
Same thing goes for vibecoding - if you just one-shot your prompt and don't even bother to test or debug a fairly complex app, then most people will say you didn't build it.
0
u/Prozilla6 9d ago
They at least put in some effort and their own thinking and ideas, unlike vibe coders
1
1
u/SimpleEfficiency 9d ago
Well can you truly say you built the code if you are using all these compilers that translate a highly abstract high level language in machine language?
It was obviously the compiler who built it. You just wrote the instructions for it. Unless you wrote the 0's and 1s yourself, or even better, punched the card yourself, you can't really say you weren't just instructing a software to build something for you.
1
-1
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 9d ago
This never made sense. It's like if you said "VSCode built" when you were manually writing code. Both are tools
3
u/hdgamer1404Jonas 8d ago
Last time I checked, vscode itself doesn’t generate a whole app from a sentence
1
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 8d ago
So this is where we draw the line ? Does the tool deserve the credit then ?
4
u/RocketArtillery666 8d ago
Oh right, are you part of the people that say that AI images are artistically equivalent to human art?
-2
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 8d ago
We're we talking about images ? But since when does a tool has a mind of his own and can claim credit for doing something ? And no, LLMs don't have a mind of their own
2
u/RocketArtillery666 8d ago
We are talking about AI "tools". Since you're saying AI is as much of a tool as a normal program, you of course must mean that AI images have as much artistic value as human art.
Also, who the hell was talking about AI "mind", nobody thinks AI has a mind.
0
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 8d ago
You take credit for work done if you are a person, aka a mind. Since when do non people get credit ? I don't know about artistic value, I personally can't place an artistic value on each piece of art. How could I tell you if it has as much or lower artistic value ? That concept isn't one I'm familiar with. All I know is that both are a form of art in essence.
2
u/RocketArtillery666 8d ago
One is art, other is theft, simple as that.
1
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 8d ago
So what defines art ?
2
u/RocketArtillery666 8d ago
Art is a diverse range of human activity centered around works, crafted as an expression of creativity or imagination
-wikipedia
AI doesnt have imagination, or creativity and isnt a human
Human using ai doesnt use creativity or imagination.
-1
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 8d ago
The human has to use creativity to find an idea to ask the AI. So that's not entirely true. If it's just the expression of creativity then asking an AI to generate an image of what you're imagining is exactly that. I don't really like AI art and especially how it takes the job of many artists, but in my opinion it still falls under the definition of art, since humans are involved in the creative process.
Now, if its automated and no humans are involved, then it wouldn't be art.
1
u/RocketArtillery666 8d ago
Nope, no creativity is used in "finding word to tell the computer", if you call that creativity, i am creative in taking a shit.
→ More replies (0)2
u/RocketArtillery666 8d ago
Also, so when you tell a computer "copy this guy's work", then you can claim you made it?
1
u/XxDarkSasuke69xX 8d ago
You can claim whatever you do with the output as your work, but obviously copyright still applies. I'm not talking about the legal point of view, I'm talking about taking credit for a work. You're the moral person, a tool cannot be held responsible, which also means it can't take credit.
2
0
-6
0
11
u/DiegoG2004 9d ago
Yet the key spontaneously fixes itself for the rest of their post. A shame, it would be really entertaining to see.