The problem with this approach is twofold.

1. The AI doesn’t know what anything is either. It can annotate faster than you, but if it is all wrong, that doesn’t help.
2. The primary reason the code is bad, and something the AI is particularly weak at without a human doing much of the thinking for it is architecture. Working your way through ship-of-theseus-style isn’t going to address the fundamental reason the code is difficult to work with. The architecture.

The websites have different (more) safeguards than the APIs do, so bots will operate on different rules.

For prime numbers, since they’re quite difficult to calculate and there’s not that many of them, that’s what’s most common.

Yes, I 100% agree with you. The ‘working less’ solution was just meant as a simple thought exercise to show that with even a relatively small change, we could eliminate this huge problem. Thus the fact that the system works in this way is not an accident.

I don’t think that AI is as disruptive as the steam engine, or the automatic loom, or the tractor. Yes, some people will lose their jobs (plenty of people have already) but the amount of work that can be done which will benefit society is near infinite. And if it weren’t, then we could all just work 5% fewer hours to make space for 5% unemployment reduction. Unemployment only exists in our current system to threaten the employed with.

Well, not how USA copyright works, but point well taken. It seems I was too naïve in my understanding of copyright.

Exactly. If I use online Photoshop or whatever, and I use the red eye removal tool, I have copyright on that picture. Same if I create a picture from scratch. Just because someone like OpenAI hosts a more complex generator doesn’t mean a whole new class of rules applies.

Whomever uses a tool, regardless of the complexity, is both responsible and benificiary of the result.