Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes: > Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes: > >> - It clearly distinguishes including LLM output in what gets committed >> from other uses of LLMs for software development, as I have been >> repeatedly advocating is important, without much uptake. > > For the record, I also strongly agree with this distinction. Sean is not > alone.
I completely agree, too. And I fear that none of the ballot options sufficiently cater to this distinction. Sean & Russ: How would you feel about a ballot option that bans LLM-generated contributions, but explicitly does not opine on the contributing human using LLM tools to e.g. debug, learn, plan, critique etc. when creating the contribution? (I realize that such a proposal might be interpreted by some as forcing those who are fine with LLM-generated code to become transcribers for the LLM, but I hope that's a minority view and that most would understand that that is not the intent.) Best, Gard
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
