It's more that ordering a crime is still illegal. If you tell a person to go and kill someone else you're still liable. In the case of using an LLM, considering our governments are trying to keep these companies not liable for anything, even assisting children to kill themselves, you'll likely be judged as a killer yourself anyway. But if the LLM company had some degree of responsibility, you'd still be held as ultimately responsible because the LLM presumably didn't come up with the crime, you did.

To reiterate what the other person was saying, if you print your own 3D model you can say you created the thing in addition to printing it. If you just download a model, regardless of license, and do no modifications, you just printed someone else's creation.

When you get an LLM to generate code for you, you can abbreviate that as "I generated this", which will be understood as using gen AI, saying you created it is misleading as we understand that as meaning you coded it yourself. Even technical leads shouldn't go around claiming everyone's work, their credit extends to their designs, direct contributions, leadership, mentoring, etc, they're not the sole creators of whatever project they lead.

Working exclusively with generated code would make you closer to a maintainer from a library you didn't write, you can put in the effort to understand what's going on and maybe even be confident enough that it's good for what it is, but that doesn't make you the creator, the same way reviewing a PR from a colleague doesn't make you the author of their code.

You're liable for the murder that you ordered. This is a legal distinction where building something isn't. Technically if you order AI to kill someone and it goes off and does it, you didn't kill someone, you prompted it to. This is all theoretical as AI doesn't have the ability outright kill someone, so this is all under the presumption that AI has a physical means of killing someone unattended.

If this AI were more like a gun where you pointed it at someone and commanded it to shoot, then you killed someone use AI as a weapon.

I will say there is nuance that can be debated between when AI use crosses from a supplemental tool to vibe coding. I don't have a clear cut answer on that and don't have the drive to go into it further, but I will concede that.

Right, because murder is equivalent to creative work.

But you have a point. They didn't actually kill. They ordered a hit. Still culpable, but without the effort or skill to actually do the deed themselves.