That's fine, using those tools is your prerogative and I won't deny it or besmirch you because of it. That being said, going to a project such as Gentoo's - defined by its ideals of Free/Libre software and its commitment to users of Free/Libre software - and intentionally go against the grain by using AI is what I protested against, as do the other contributors and council members.
Using AI, such as ChatGPT and Claude and such, in contributions to Free/Libre software, is not practically wrong, it's ideologically wrong. It is so, in my opinion, because the AI was produced by a company that did not ask anyone for permission when incorporating training materials (applies to all commercial AI products of today), it did not respect the liberties of its contributors nor its rights to ownership of their work (applies to all commercial AI products of today), and now asks of you to foot the bill for whatever slop it produces (applies to most commercial AI products of today, some are still free to use).
You can use your tools if you like them, that's fine, I'm not your boss. But on that last point, a large majority of users I've encountered, in this thread even, seem to agree that all AI-produced works need retouching (big or small retouching, though most often big) in order to be usable in any serious endeavor. Midjourney users need to touch up the fingers and the landscapes and look for artifacts of all kinds. Copilot users need to rewrite whole algorithms sometimes because of plagiarism and outright erroneous calculations (unless you don't care). ChatGPT needs to be fact-checked if you ask it to write anything significant.
I ask you this, if you have to oversee everything it produces, costs money, and is generally agreed to produce low-quality work, why not hire a junior employee instead? Freshers, as our fellows in India would call them. Lord knows we need more of them.
Using AI, such as ChatGPT and Claude and such, in contributions to Free/Libre software, is not practically wrong, it's ideologically wrong. It is so, in my opinion, because the AI was produced by a company that did not ask anyone for permission when incorporating training materials (applies to all commercial AI products of today), it did not respect the liberties of its contributors nor its rights to ownership of their work (applies to all commercial AI products of today), and now asks of you to foot the bill for whatever slop it produces (applies to most commercial AI products of today, some are still free to use).
You can use your tools if you like them, that's fine, I'm not your boss. But on that last point, a large majority of users I've encountered, in this thread even, seem to agree that all AI-produced works need retouching (big or small retouching, though most often big) in order to be usable in any serious endeavor. Midjourney users need to touch up the fingers and the landscapes and look for artifacts of all kinds. Copilot users need to rewrite whole algorithms sometimes because of plagiarism and outright erroneous calculations (unless you don't care). ChatGPT needs to be fact-checked if you ask it to write anything significant.
I ask you this, if you have to oversee everything it produces, costs money, and is generally agreed to produce low-quality work, why not hire a junior employee instead? Freshers, as our fellows in India would call them. Lord knows we need more of them.