I think that the title is badly worded but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that looking at it from a different perspective, AI is not even a slave. We can look at it more like outsourcing work. I pay for it after all to have something done that I wouldn't want to do myself.
Regarding point 2, I don't trust my data being safe running inference on model creators api, but neither do I trust US providers. Both use it for their own benefit, the only difference is the country of origin. The US has a lot more legal safeguards for this but I don't trust they don't do it regardless.
legal safeguards only make sense only when they’re enforced. With how “move fast and break things” Silicon Valley is law is always playing catch up (at your expense)
I think that the path that was taken should include mistakes. It's natural that code at some point would contain bugs and mistakes. If anything, your approach would encourage to squash those commits into one just to make it being review-worthy, but that misses the point then.
It shouldn't be that path that was taken but the path that will be taken when the PR is merged, split up into as many self-contained steps as possible to ease review now as well as triage if problems are found later.
I'm honestly not sure if that's satire or not. Like I feel this wouldn't work, right? Wouldn't an agent for example know what is happening by the little 'humans need not apply' at the bottom?
