Hi, Ihor, Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: > Matthew Weymar <[email protected]> writes: >> Do you have a preference as to whether people do or do not use an LLM to >> write a patch?... If so, I am curious as to why. > > First reason is simple - I have been instructed by Emacs maintainers to > not accept LLM-written patches. This is because GNU does not yet have an > official policy on this. And GNU does not have a policy because the > licensing implications of LLM code are not yet clear. > (...) > The second reason is more important. (...) one of the benefits of > contributing to libre software - learning. Normally, even if you never > saw the Elisp standards documentation, you can follow the example of > the rest of Org code and get reasonable code quality, implicitly > learning the code style along the way. > > Third reason is my time. (...) if the patch is simply generated by LLM > (especially by inexperienced contributors or inexperienced LLM users), > the time I spend reviewing is much harder to justify.
Looks like it's time to add a note to this effect to https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html, and possibly elsewhere as well. The points you make that go beyond copyright are well put, and I think it is worth setting them out. Should the copyright issue somehow be resolved to GNU's satisfaction, it doesn't mean that we want to open the floodgates. In fact, it might also be worth just briefly noting that there are wider ongoing controversies about what use of generative AI is ethical and in line with FOSS aims, without necessarily setting them out or stating a position. Regards, Christian
