Hi, Serhei - > [...] > Weighing in on this fairly late, but one thought seems worth pointing out. > (It took me a while to digest my own positions on this.)
Digestion takes time! And positions can shift. > [...] This project functions as a de-facto reference implementation > for ELF and DWARF standard. If I want to understand how DWARF > works, this is a good place to look. Seeing working code gives > greater confidence than reading standards documents that might be > technically precise but confusing English. > Would referring to an elfutils implementation continue to be useful > if the commit history and git blame showed an increasing proportion > of LLM-generated stuff? I see no reason why that would be a problem. Usefulness comes more from correctness rather than authorship. > The LLM advocacy I'm able to find seems to neglect this kind of > question, accepting some decline in quality with "well, the specs > are now the canonical source of truth" (Where have you seen that?) Heck, it wouldn't be crazy to have an AI systematically compare the DWARF specs to an implementation, clause by clause, to find mismatches. Few humans would have the patience to do that. > and "well, the LLM can be asked to fix problems introduced by > earlier use of the LLM". Note, that is not that different from what happens with human authored works too. Perfection is rare. - FChE
