zlacker

Do I also have to disclose using tab completion? My IDE uses machine learning for completion suggestions.

Do I need to disclose that I wrote a script to generate some annoying boilerplate? Or that my IDE automatically templates for loops?

>>estima+(OP)
It's a spectrum, isn't it? I wouldn't want to waste my time reviewing a bunch of repetitive code generated from some script or do something like review every generated template instantiation in a C++ code base. I would want to review the script/template definition/etc., but what's the equivalent for AI? Should the review just be the prompt(s)?

Edit: Also, it's always good to provide maximal context to reviewers. For example, when I use code from StackOverflow I link the relevant answer in a comment so the reviewer doesn't have to re-tread the same ground I covered looking for that solution. It also gives reviewers some clues about my understanding of the problem. How is AI different in this regard?

>>estima+(OP)
If you're not sure, it's probably safer to just mention it.

>>estima+(OP)
No, it explicitly says that you don't need to disclose tab completion.

>>estima+(OP)
> Do I also have to disclose using tab completion? My IDE uses machine learning for completion suggestions.

Yes, you have to disclose it.

> Do I need to disclose that I wrote a script to generate some annoying boilerplate?

You absolutely need to disclose it.

> Or that my IDE automatically templates for loops?

That's probably worth disclosing too.