Tim Landscheidt <[email protected]> writes: >> b. They confirm that they have reviewed the LLM-generated code and >> *also the code it changes* >> 3. Contributors who wrote their own patches in the past may use LLM for >> smallish patches. No new substantial features. >> 4. Regular contributors may be trusted to use LLM assist for new >> features. They are probably experienced enough to review the >> generated code and make sure that it is reasonable. > >> […] > > As a user, I wouldn't be happy with this. > > First, this establishes some kind of LLM priesthood where, > when one is experienced enough, one can use an LLM. It also > requires this LLM-generated code just to be "reviewed". > History shows that in every field there are lots of people > who consider themselves experienced and that "review" is a > very loosely defined term that does not necessarily involve > looking at the code.
> I want every contribution to be "owned". That means that a > (human) contributor understands the code to the extent that > they can answer questions about it and take responsibility > if it introduces some bug or vulnerability. +1. I just use a different definition of the word reviewed. In my book, review includes understanding what the code does and why. It also includes understanding how the code fits into the rest of Org code. Actually, I do not quite understand the word "owned". Maybe I can make it more clear what reviewed means or mention that for any kind of patch we expect the submitter to understand the code being submitted and answer questions about it. > Second, one of the main advantages of Org, Emacs and free > software overall is that I (as a user) can change and extend > it. When doing so, I often encounter code that makes this > process harder. LLMs and similar tools do not care about > this. They "understand" complexity to a degree that a human > cannot, and thus they are not "interested" in generating > code that is easy to read and easy to extend. As a result, > this may lead to a code base that a human can no longer > comprehend, i. e. a form of "closed source". LLMs do not "care" about anything. Only the users do. The submitter is responsible to do its best to provide a reasonably quality of the code. With LLM or not. The maintainer's job is making sure that code pushed to the Org repository is of sufficient quality - understandable, uses good programming practices, and fits into the overall design conventions used in the project. This is my job. This has nothing to do with LLMs. Rest assured that even if LLM-generated code is allowed to be submitted, it does not mean that bad quality LLM-generated code (or bad quality code in general) will be accepted. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
