The right response then perhaps would be to correctly assign AI the authorship it deserves instead of the human "operator/patron" who did not understand what the AI wrought, but merely acted as benefactor to provide the token fee.
A paper should stand and fall on its merits; does it build constructively on our collective understanding? Does it advance the state of the art in its field? Does it shed new light on a prior mystery?
So it seems there ought to be a path whereby a quality non-human paper ought to be considered for submission, provided it is adequately and correctly attributed.
My first startup job after college I was astonished to find that one of our most productive engineers was a deaf furry who used Windows Notepad as his dev environment. His code always compiled first time and was nearly always right. It really was something to behold.
Not that many years ago (maybe 2012-2014), we were taught working with R using only the base-R. Its' native script editor was a Windows Notepad or something equivalent. We used this for years.. Professors as well. For some reason we didn't know about RStudio or any other fancy IDE.
TBF using notepad + terminal is a great way to learn how a language or stack works. It's possible for pretty much everything, and once you learn how your ide (or LLM) is putting things together it makes it so much easier to fix when things go wrong
This must depend on language. I think that at least for Python, JS/TS, Go, C, Fortran there isn’t much difference in setup with notepad+terminal (or sublime+terminal for myself) relative to whatever the kids are using these days. Other than syntax highlighting and LSP, obviously, but I’m not sure those have much to do with learning how the language or stack work. Could you explain what you mean if I’m misunderstanding something?
The last thing my father said to me before he passed was to keep people looking forward to the future.
It's easy to romanticize the past and it can seem intellectually sophisticated to despair about the future, when in fact the overwhelming evidence is that things have gotten much much better for nearly everyone on just about any objective axis you can pick.
We came up with the idea of having a place where nerds could come together to hang out and learn from each other and we decided to call the concept "Hacker Dojo". I had a sign laser engraved in 2002 at a state fair to memorialize the idea but we didn't actually get to open a Hacker Dojo until 2009.
There's a conference room in it called Kaminsky.
Dan was not a very good roommate but man, his brain worked in weird and wonderful ways, and it was inspiring how he could just rabbit-hole on stuff other people didn't find interesting until he MADE it interesting and found things nobody else had.
I wasn't sure how specific to be in my comment, but I'm glad the people who knew him know who it is. Speaks a lot of the man. I'm also 100% ready to believe he was not a good roommate by the condition of his car ;)
A paper should stand and fall on its merits; does it build constructively on our collective understanding? Does it advance the state of the art in its field? Does it shed new light on a prior mystery?
So it seems there ought to be a path whereby a quality non-human paper ought to be considered for submission, provided it is adequately and correctly attributed.