There's a meaningful difference between crediting an author with his work, and engaging in reckless and negligent behavior. Yes, OP prompted an LLM to build something for him. He did not engage in a creative act or solve engineering problems. He should not feel pride for pulling the lever on the slop machine just because it paid out.

LLM companies set their bots loose on a task and failed to secure the environment. I haven't met anyone who suggests they are brilliant hackers that put Kevin Mitnick to shame. I have heard (and happen to agree with) arguments that they created conditions, either willfully or unwittingly, in which their systems breeched others. The argument is that they acted with gross negligence when using a dangerous tool, and may or may not be liable for such. If the US ever makes crime illegal again, the courts will decide.

I just find the apparent hypocrisy amusing.

I hear an endless stream of anti-AI nonsense daily - and this appears to be yet another example of it.

The "apparent" hypocrisy dissappears the moment you think about it at all though, as I explained above.

But if you're not capable of moving beyond a superficial reading of a statement, I can see how you might easily dismiss as "nonsense" the very real environmental, economic, technical, ethical, social, and cognitive issues introduced by the way LLMs have been forced into our lives.

If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

> LLMs have been forced into our lives

Anyone who hasn't had his head in the sand has seen this coming for the last 60 years. Why do you think Turing created his test?

At this point the stubborn refusal to see it has become laughable.

> The "apparent" hypocrisy dissappears the moment you think about it at all though, as I explained above.

Yeah... I think we'll just need to agree to disagree, friend.