Your proposed solution may still be the correct one but I want you to reconsider the premise it is based on.

You said, "Jest may not be picking up the override properly" but this is impossible. Jest does exactly what it is told to do. Jest is heavily tested so it is unlikely it is not doing something properly.

(prompt continues below)

Clearly defining the problem is half the solution. When you say, "starved for feedback on how our work impacts the world", what does that feedback look like? Is it citations in other research, lower poverty rates, higher overall GDP, something else? Honest question.

It also seems reasonable to expect AIs to eventually stop writing human-readable code and just write bits and bytes with the expectation that humans will never be expected to intervene. Should we consider legislation against doing this even if limited to certain contexts??

Writing code that is difficult to maintain and modify is irresponsible but unless the operator, me, _knows_ what unmaintainable code looks like, there's nothing to stop the AI from producing it. It is easy to imagine a future in which codebases are so complex that only AIs can understand them.

Well organized code also has fewer bugs, normally, because it is compartmentalized and thus easily tested. AI and AI-enabled coding tools are great at producing functioning code but never include tests unless explicitly told to do so. It's as if they have no concept of responsibility.

You're probably right...

If that were true it would be called "reproduction-right", but it's not.

So, how, exactly does the copy get from the source (their web sites) and into the training set (a database)?