Because, as usual with that kind of question, it's not that simple.

Let's say an user asks ChatGPT to get some info about something and for some reason it starts using exploits in the background to get them from a server. Should the user be responsible or OpenAI?

This seems to be confirmed here: https://socket.dev/openvsx/package/whatwedo.twig/versions/1....

Well no, they don't need to. As they said they could just do something else instead of contributing (and I know I would too).

Your proposal would just end up killing those open source projects even more than what you are trying to solve.

Maybe those customers should just be more selective with the people they allow to contribute to their project?

Also, this kind of message doesn't even bring valuable info: it doesn't explain how the AI was used (could be 99% vibe-coding, or just a quick "Please review current changes" + minor fixes at the end?), which model was used, etc. Like other commenters here I can't see this as anything else than a marketing push for Copilot.

Don't take it personally though, you are probably not the one that should be taking the heat since the change was directly pushed by your product manager.

I fail to see why you would need that kind of information to find out if someone is not competent. This really sounds like an attempt at crazy micro-management.

The "distillation" that you want already exists in various forms: the commit message, the merge request description/comments, the code itself, etc.

Those can (and should) easily be reviewed.

Did you previously monitor which kind of web searches developpers where doing when working on a feature/bugfix? Or asked them to document all the thoughts that they had while doing so?

I see it everyday on forums/Discord servers where some users will treat you like their personal search engine simply because they are too lazy to spend 10s reading the results themselves.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45814408

Points: 10

# Comments: 1

There are also some other incorrect things in that post that makes the code overly complicated, like:

> Every async function needs a new Promise, and needs to resolve()

That's definitely not needed unless you call something that runs asynchronously without being `async` or returning a standard `Promise` (in which case you could probably use a generic wrapper to convert them to `Promise` objects and avoid having to do that everytime).

The "Nintendo" logo you see when booting a Game Boy comes from the cartridge and is checked against one stored in the console.

If they don't match the whole thing stops, which means that you have to add (and distribute) a Nintendo logo to your game in order for it to work on real hardware.

I think you may have misunderstood what Typescript is and isn't.

It isn't meant to provide polyfills, it is only supposed to handle the grammar of the language that needs to be transpiled.

That's why you have the two following settings: - target : Which version of the grammar will be available at runtime (eg. classes, async, ...), that's the part used by the transpiler - lib : Which libraries (eg. promises, maps, sets, ...) you know will be available at runtime (only used for type-checking)

Using a polyfill is really easy if you are using the right value for "lib" since the it will have the same signature as the real method: simply import it once in your project.

In this case it is supposed to override your IDE settings.