My thought is to not focus on whether they used the magic generator or not. My thought is to know who or what produced the code. Since I think it’s important to know where code comes from. Especially if dealing with projects that don’t want any generated code. Obviously the kernel isn’t one of those but still.

Or you could just shame them for not checking the output. People should never be get to freely deflect all blame to the LLMs, that’s just stupid and the fact it happens is complete brainrot caused by these things.

The LLM can come up with all the implementation details and such by itself, while the developer only provides wishes for new features. Figuring out where to draw the line between it just being fully “vibecoded” or being code the developer would have written manually is super hard, so why not just always say if LLM generated the code? What’s the harm in that?

True in some regards, however the word completion in my IDE is only active when I’m typing new code in, it only picks words that already exist in the code (along with language specific keywords, etc). It never types the following word for me, and I have to manually accept the completion I want. It is inactive when I’m typing comments in, and so on.

The LLM you tell to write you a function, and it writes the whole thing, comments and all. It’s not quite the same. The original GitHub Copilot was closest to traditional IDE completion though, and there if it wrote a whole long function for me I’d definitely give credit where it’s due.

My IDE does not write the code for me, at most it autocompletes words.

To me it matters because if you got code from someone else, you’d probably want to credit it to them, right? So why shouldn’t LLM output be treated the same?