> You missed my point, there is no use teaching those who are cheating.
It's a very invalid point. Perhaps in your life you've never encountered people who cheat and later change their ways, but it's fairly common for them to change their ways.
The fact they might change their way does not erase the fact that I am wasting the time I spend mentoring cheaters, time I could spend mentoring non-cheaters.
Would you also say it's ok for people to steal because they might one day not-steal? So an increase in robberies does not hurt? I am not sure I understood you correctly.
> The fact they might change their way does not erase the fact that I am wasting the time I spend mentoring cheaters, time I could spend mentoring non-cheaters.
Several people have asked you, and you still haven't explained why it's OK to waste time with "non-cheaters" and not with "cheaters".
> Would you also say it's ok for people to steal because they might one day not-steal?
No. Unless stealing is permitted, which it usually isn't. LLMs, OTOH, are merely a tool and their use has no morality attached to it. It's you that seem to attach some morality to LLM use.
(Of course, if your company disallows LLM usage, that's another story).
> I am not sure I understood you correctly.
Your comments seem to make the assumption that LLM based code is shittier than what a typical poor developer would write, which I pointed out in another comment is often not true.
Just treat the code based on its merit. If it's utter crap, tell the developer it's utter crap. Just stop second guessing whether he wrote it or an LLM did.
There is a threshold below which even I won't review code.
There comment is in response to the article. The article straight up advocates for starting from LLM generated code. This is a perfectly valid counter point.
Aside: it’s confusing that parent commenter used “cheating” in a completely different way than the title of the article.
