> I think in general you give smart people powerful tools and good things always happen. That’s why I’m so hesitant to ban a TOOL when the problem to me is inadequate people.
This resonates strongly with me. I've seen AI weilded mindlessly, effectively offloading the burden of critical thought from the submitter to the reviewers. This inevitably annoys the reviewers. I've also seen mindless changes where AI wasn't used at all that are equally annoying.
In contrast, I've seen AI weilded by contributors who still put in the effort of thinking critically about the change, and these changes are usually no more onerous to review than a fully-human generated change.
The differtiator between a good submission and an annoying one is typically the behaviors of the human, not whether or not AI was used. The way forward is to define the behaviors we want to encourage and avoid, and figure out the incentive structures to push contributors to using the proper behaviors.
> I think in general you give smart people powerful tools and good things always happen. That’s why I’m so hesitant to ban a TOOL when the problem to me is inadequate people.
This resonates strongly with me. I've seen AI weilded mindlessly, effectively offloading the burden of critical thought from the submitter to the reviewers. This inevitably annoys the reviewers. I've also seen mindless changes where AI wasn't used at all that are equally annoying.
In contrast, I've seen AI weilded by contributors who still put in the effort of thinking critically about the change, and these changes are usually no more onerous to review than a fully-human generated change.
The differtiator between a good submission and an annoying one is typically the behaviors of the human, not whether or not AI was used. The way forward is to define the behaviors we want to encourage and avoid, and figure out the incentive structures to push contributors to using the proper behaviors.