> the code is there for you to look at and use or not

Perhaps this is a matter of different perspectives? Every tool I use is an investment for me, it might be light if I only use it once, it might be heavy if I use it for years. That investment is all the time I take to learn the various concepts involved and how to think about problems to fit the tool. But it is also all the time needed to constantly keep in mind if that tool is affected by the latest security vulnerability, how changing trends in the industry affects my use of the tool, and what to do if the tool becomes abandonware.

Reading code is hard. Writing can sometimes even be faster than reading, especially when there are many unknowns involved. So saying "you can just read it" doesn't really work for me. There's no "just" in reading. Taking in new tools is an investment, a burden, and I am perfectly entitled to avoid tools where that burden is harder than the expected outcome. It's impossible to know for sure, of course, but you can often guess pretty good very early.

because it matters. Why would you intentionally choose to ignore that fact if it was provided?

I have been using LLMs since August last year, and I know the output they can produce. And I know that the initial output requires refinement in most cases. And that's coming from someone experienced in Software development. LLMs in the hands of people who are not experienced lead to skip a proper review process.

Additionally, it's unreasonable to assume one can take a large codebase and will spend hours on examining the code before. It's not only unreasonable but downright ridiculous.

LLMs are a part of reality right now and they're not going away. Code should be labeled as such. Not doing that is inconsiderate.

There's a Kroger grocery store near my house. It's very convenient -- I'm near it almost every day I'm alive. They have all kinds of things there, including factory-made bread and factory-made eggs.

There's also a tiny little Amish bakery that I know of. They make all kinds of things there, but the most interesting to me are the loaves of plain white bread that they bake every day (except Sunday) in their wood-fired oven. It is not near to me and is also off the beaten path a good bit, but I try to make a point to go there when I'm in the area. I usually just get a loaf of that plain white bread along with a dozen eggs from the chickens that they have roaming around outside eating bugs.

I wouldn't call any aspect of it artisanal or anything like that, but it's definitely not made by machines.

And for reasons I can't really rationalize or explain, I enjoy having things from the Amish bakery in my kitchen more than I do the superficially similar things that I get from Kroger.

And yet: I usually eat the factory stuff from Kroger. On a strictly functional basis it's about the same to me.

---

Anyway: Software. Did a bot write it? Did a person? Was it a combined effort? Does it even matter?

I can accept that folks might prefer to have software in their library that is written by people. My acceptance of this does not require them to rationalize their preference, or for me to agree with it or even understand it.

It's fine when someone cares about that kind of thing. And it's fine if they don't care, too.

We're allowed to like what we like. It's good to have options, and it's OK to prefer one way over another.