@coldfish @j2bryson Transparent disclosure of any kind of AI-assistance shouldn't be a controversial topic for anyone who's choosing to use it. The possibility of your clients distrusting you about the extent of the AI-assistance in your work arises precisely because there's a lack of transparency about it in the first place. And if your clients have an issue with you using genAI in your work in general - well, I suppose you change your target audience then. Because consumers have a right to know. And there are plenty of reasons besides accuracy or security for why someone would choose to opt out of it. Maybe they'd rather not contribute to the climate impact of it or to the abuse of people in the Global South in order to drive the AI-adoption forward. Similarly to how vegetarians choose to not consume meat. That doesn't give manufacturers freedom to not mention that there's meat in their products. I suppose you can see how that would be unacceptable.

@jonathan.boxcake.net It's asking the system to actively supress who has written the code how and why, in EVERY context. It's a digital artefact, it should be trivial to actually make it succinctly record how it's being used.