On Saturday, 11 July 2026, 06:15 Moritz Angermann wrote: > I think it [the draft LLM policy] ignores the English as a Second > Language part. If a contributor uses LLM tools to improve/rephrase > documentation they write to use more natural, idiomatic and clearer > English, I’d be very happy for them to do this.
Note, though, that such LLM use carries the risk that people just delegate the work of improving their texts to LLMs and thus don’t train themselves to write better texts. > “LLM-generated code will contain different mistakes than code written > by humans does while the results often look very similar on the first > glance.” If we make such a claim, we need to put substance to it; this > needs a source. Good insight can come from a multitude of understanding, experience, and reflection, while scientific studies on complex topics carry the risk of oversimplifying matters. A good human judgement may be more valuable than quoting a source. > where does attribution start? Am I going to add assisted by: vim, > emacs, vscode, macros, stack overflow answers, snippets libraries? No, it is only about LLMs. 🙂 The functionality of editors and macros is understandable by the user, the behavior of LLM systems is not. > If I use an LLM to instantiate a for loop for me, auto complete an > identifier, execute a macro, …? Why would you want to use an LLM for this? Doesn’t this make your life harder, at least in the long run? > I feel a lot of these policies feel like they try to prescribe/dictate > some behavior instead of leading and focusing on the intended outcome. The outcome cannot be separated from the behavior that led to it. Sure, there can be a lot of freedom regarding how people arrive at their outcomes, but LLM systems are fundamentally different from normal tools and thus using them may result in outcome of a different kind. All the best, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
