You're getting caught up in wording. Its a tool yes, and we use shorthand for things like saying "I washed my clothes" when we didnt actually do the washing but I think most rational people understand the difference between that and saying you drew a picture when you just told an ai to make a picture.
A better way to look at it is that we don't say "I made directions to the event" we say "Google gave me directions". We told Google where we wanted to go and google did the work of making the directions, so maybe its better to say AI gave me a picture, or AI made me a picture.
Unfortunately humans use wording as communication so you need to define where the line in the wording is.
If I develop the Ai and then told it to make the image, did I make the image then? If I drew 90% of the image but Ai did 10%, did I make the image? 80%? 70%?
It can be more like a choreographer directing a group of dancers and then claiming they choreographed the performance, which is accurate. I don’t compile my code, I just write high-level instructions and let a computer do 99.999% of the actual work required to execute my mod concept.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with that. That’s a perfectly normal and acceptable workflow for people who have jobs.
Yes, but there are people where all they do is tell the AI to make something, contribute no effort than just saying "make" and then claim they made it. It's a different conversation for people with jobs, it's the ones who just prompt and nothing else while claiming they did all the work.
Different people put in different amounts of effort. Prompting takes a non-zero amount of effort, and it can take a considerable amount of effort to vibe code a good, functional mod.
The sheer fact that AI was used at all means nothing.
"I didn't hack anyone, Claude did" would maybe still apply while keeping the prompter responsible, for the same logic which says thatif I hire a hitman I'd still get arrested for ordering a murder, not for commiting a murder.
In both cases, the human is directing the AI to do something, and then we, societally, decide who gets credit for the output.
The fact that robbing banks is bad and making useful software is good should never change how you feel about who is responsible
ETA: and for the record, it’s basically just Reddit who “doesn’t like ai apologists or ai apathetics.” IRL a majority of people use AI, as has been polled time and time again. And those who don’t are most definitely not majority hateful towards people who are apathetic to ai lmao
So if you make pasta from a recipe you found online, did you make it? Or did someone else online make it
OpenAI says that everything you generate is yours with copyright rights and all that
18
u/EntertainmentOdd8205 11h ago edited 11h ago
Claude has no agency. The person built it because they told Claude to write code.
Unless of course you can say “I didn’t hack anyone, Claude did”
I don’t think this is a can of worms you want opened.
Edit to expound:
So someone sits down at a computer, opens up Claude, and says “hack company xyz”
They have hacked the company. Legally, morally, ethically, linguistically.
So someone else sits down at a computer, opens up Claude, and says “make a mod that does xyz”
Apparently they have not made a mod in any way?
This makes no sense.
Whether you like the output doesn’t affect who made it or who is responsible for its existence.