No, I just reject the notion that the ongoing discussion about AI use in software production is a moral/ethical one. That's a bullshit narrative to actually discredit all the good reasons against AI by making up a mostly fictional "but it's just ideology"-argument.

Yes actions include moral choices. But actions that are stupid and make no sense at all don't need to be discussed in terms of is it ethically okay to do it, because that's not the interesting point there.

I won't discuss about the moral choice of hitting my thumb with a hammer, even less to when I tried hammering in a screw like a moron. So I will also not discuss imaginary topics of ethical use of AI in coding. Because it's bullshit. It produces low quality slob. It's a scam trying to tell people with no clue about programmning that they can totally do it, too, while trying to gas-light programmers into believing that they really, really need to use that tool for coding or be left behind. Using AI for coding because you already used it for debugging tasks is not an ethical discussion. Just like using a hammer for a screw because you already hammered in nails is not one. It's a discussion about what AI CAN do and what it CAN'T. Discussions if you SHOULD use AI for a specific task have to happen AFTER you determined if it makes sense first place. And to return the hammer analogy a third time (it's a magic number after all...): If someone would try to argue that we need to discuss the ethics of hammering in a screw because it already worked with a nail, would you agree that all actions have ethical implications that need to be considered or would you dismiss him because the ethical discussion is not relevant. I did the latter in my comment.

Again: If using AI for coding for real world purposes (and I don't talk about non-technical people building their low quality app here... that's mostly a gimmick) was viable, sure... use it. Or let's start an ethics discussion then. That's fine with me, too.

But don't pretend that the actual discussion right know, mainly lead by clueless people evaluating a new gimmick with very little understanding of its actual capabilities (and limits) and CEOs willing to believe in any snake oil if it promises to help them get rid of those obnoxious workers demanding pay (it won't - every actual fact and number tells us that AI is in fact more expensive, even before figuring in the human employees also needed to hold the leash) is one about ethical use in coding. It isn't. It's about a discussion between those that use AI for the things it can do and avoid it where it's useless and those that somehow have found their new religion and saviour and try to make everything about a) those in tech that use AI because they obviously have seen the light and converted and b) those still left in the dark and fighting their new god for made up moral or other reasons.

That's a fairy tale completely ignoring the third group: technical people that use AI only and exactly where it makes sense. A fairy tale mostly pushed by a few people behind AI development because they already sunk such insane sums into it that they need to believe (and make you believe) that an (human level or more) artificial general intelligence is just around the corner. Just think about it: there people are actually taking about the equivalent of creating new life (new artificial conciousness) to justify their insane investments. And we should talk about the ethical implications of using AI in coding? How is that not a distraction?

Btw... now that I thought about it (and spelled some of it out) I want to walk back to my earlier statement. If AI is actually able to do soon™ what the morons behind it are proposing, that's indeed the moment to start an ethics discussion. A very complicated one about definitions of conciousness and life... good thing that this will not actually happen.

Because it's very much not a person, and it didn't learn anything.

A for-profit corporation simply scraped the net and fed a bunch of other people's work (the direct result of human labor) into a system of biased nodes and anthropomorphized it by calling it "intelligence" and "learning".

This is exploitation of labor of the working and creative class, nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn't have the agency of a human being, nor does have the creativity or individual perspective of one. It has no senses of it's own or lived experiences to draw from, and it is not sentient. Furthermore, it doesn't interact with the world or economy like a human being, it does not create things like a human being, and if has no human rights or even copyrights.

LLMs are not people, no matter how some people choose to treat them.

Stack Overflow was always about sharing your learning and knowledge with other humans. Just like open source. We didn't anticipate, and didn't give permission, for it being used to train AI.