On July 29, 2026 2:27:56 AM EDT, Jean Louis <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2026-07-29 08:29, Thanos Apollo wrote: >> Hey Jean, >> >> I think we should ease off the maintainers or their handling. > >I am not arguing with maintainers neither asking them to read this e-mail, >neither to change anything in whatever they are doing. And this is Emacs >tangents, not emacs-devel. Subject is specific, not general. > >Purpose of my messages is to point out a logical inconsistency in the defense >of the LLM commit, not to attack the maintainers, but to protect the integrity >of the GNU Project by ensuring that policy violations are honestly >acknowledged and not explained away with implausible excuses. > >I am making my own conclusions on the mailing list. Exchanging minds related >to Emacs, and yet I keep hearing these politely-veiled "STFU" calls telling me >to be quiet. > >Personally, I just can't believe an Emacs developer would need Claude for >anything.
An LLM would be the perfect tool for making changelog commits, BTW. I *hate* the things and over the years, I've kept a change local instead of bothering to itemize in a commit message all the changes git already records that I've done. Yet even this use of LLMs, which is just tedium , not skill, and which (IANAL) has about as much copyright hook as a phone book (see Feist v Rural Telephone) is prohibited. It's hard to interpret this prohibition as rooted in practical considerations. > Emacs is the tool for thinking and writing, its developers are some of the > best programmers out there. Why ask Claude, of all things, made by Anthropic? > It's not just a policy slip but it goes against everything free software > stands for. This idea that LLMs are crutch for poor developers isn't something you observe in the broader software world. You can hate LLMs all you want, but more is happening than slop. The Linux kernel derives tremendous value from LLM code review. Are Linux developers any less skilled than Emacs ones? It's hard to watch the anti-AI sentiment brew here. AI is not evil. You can say it's unethical appropriation of work; I say it's a boon to all mankind, an inversion of the Hobbesian war of all against all: AI is all teaching all. I see no incompatibility with free software. We'd do better trying to make models prioritize user freedom than trying to undo the future. Isn't free software supported to be about empowering users to control their own computing? An AI can generate personalized software on demand. What could be more freeing? I also can't see a universe in which software gets rolled back to the blissful familiarity of 2022. If LLMs end up conflicting with copyright law, it's going to be copyright law that gets steamrolled. Do you really think that the past four years of tech is going to get rolled back in an orgy of copyright lawsuits? Come on. That's ridiculous. Eschewing AI use on copyright grounds, and especially being so paranoid as to force-push to master to remove a tag, serves as much purpose as maintaining a stable of horses in case this newfangled automobile technology gets banned. --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
