On top of that, regardless of however you feel about AI, there are so many questions about copyright and ownership here, that as-of-yet remain untried and unanswered by the courts, that it's essentially impossible to know what the legal ramifications will turn out to be, when accepting "AI code" in your project. I definitely fear that it could turn out to be a sort of trojan horse against especially the GPL, and other copyleft licenses. I conaider it to be risky to use AI code, on that basis alone.

Agreed.

I strongly remember a CompSci professor ~2005 being disgusted with auto-generated Java GUI. And yes it was clunky and more memory intensive than it could have been, but also, I really don't care about how GridView is defined most of the time.

Bad code is bad code, touched by AI or not. For working code, a volunteer group spending resources to determine if it might have been touched by AI is at the very least an incredibly frustrating standard to try to meet. And very likely impossible to verify in any meaningful way.

I've been a programmer for two thirds of my life up to this point. I don't see how the machine that generates code that must be assumed to be broken, and statements about said code that must be assumed to be wrong, until both have been manually verified, because the "hallucination" issue is inherent to the design of LLMs and cannot be solved, is supposed to make my life easier. Especially since a well known problem in computer science is that writing code is more fun than reading it.

If you're using AI for code generation, I hope you like reading code.

If you're using AI to learn your way around an existing codebase, I hope you're prepared to fact check everything it tells you.

If you're using AI for code review before merging a PR, fucking yikes. What made you think the sycophant machine that once told users a soggy cereal bar was a great business opportunity and cannot even transcribe McDonald's orders correctly was suitable for that purpose?

If you're telling yourself it's okay because there's a human in the loop, please read some studies about attention fatigue and consider that increasing the number of critical decisions a person must make per day, while giving them a suggested answer that's right 90% of the time and catastrophically wrong the remaining 10%, and the only way to tell the difference is to read in depth, might not have the desired effect. Especially if the human in question is then put under time pressure.

And all that is before I go on a five paragraph rant about the ethical transgressions of every major AI company.

It's pretty black and white for me.