I disclosed AI because I think it's important to disclose it. I also take pride in the process. Mind you, I also cite Stack Overflow answers in my code if I use it. Usually with a comment like:
// Source: https://stackoverflow.com/q/11828270
With any AI code I use, I adopted this style (at least for now):
// Note: This was generated by Claude 4.5 Sonnet (AI).
// Prompt: Do something real cool.
The funny thing is the phrasing used to be more neutral, but I changed the tone to be slightly more skeptical because people thought I was just glazing AI in my post. Another guy on Reddit seemed annoyed that I didn't love AI enough.
I just wanted to document the process for this type of project. shrug
It seems to me that AI is mostly optimized for tricking suits into thinking they don't need people to do actual work. If I hear "you're absolutely right!" one more time my eyes might roll all the way back into my head.
Still, even though they suck at specific artifacts or copy, I've had success asking an LLM to poke for holes in my documentation. Things that need concrete examples, knowledge assumptions I didn't realize I was making, that sort of thing.
It's fuzzy, but I think it was because I was learning GB assembly while working on shaders in Houdini or something (I'm a tech artist). The two worlds collided in my head, saw that there's no native multiplication on the GB, and figured it'd be a fun problem.
