* Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> [2026-03-10 22:35]: > chris <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Preliminary ideas are the following: > >> > >> 1. First-time contributors should be discouraged to use LLM > > > > I completely understand the problem of having to sift through large amounts > > of > > poor code that arrive frequently. > > > > But how can you tell whether the code was generated by an LLM? > > I have seen too much of LLM code and texts myself. In many cases I can > recognize it. (For example, some of the recent patches likely used LLM > assist for documentation, but I judged it as acceptable and did not > raise any concerns).
It was rethorical question. I don't doubt your skills of recognition, but problem is that there is no crime to be judged in the first place. What matters is free software freedoms. Not how it was generated, who pressed which button, are we going to ask users which model was used, or maybe if grandmother participated... Who cares! Problem is in the sole notion that you have to judge it, while there is no crime involved. Does function work? Does it return what it should? Org mode decision makers may resist, but packages will be created, and they will go somewhere else. In fact that is exactly what is happening. There are more Org related packages in MELPA by huge margin versus GNU ELPA. Are package authors really to care of Org guideliness when they start feeling unwelcoming? They will not. They may deviate to other communities or simply make their own packages. > Sometimes, LLM code can contain subtle errors related from incomplete > understanding of the codebase. However, I do not expect human authors to > have a complete understanding of Org codebase. There is no significant > difference for me in this regard. That is it, I am on same page with that. -- Jean Louis
