Hey Simon, I like the policy as it clearly states that we do prefer human written code and want to engage with other humans as we collaborate. There's more to GHC and the community around it than trying to hammer out a product in the most efficient way conceivable. It's sharing knowledge, exploring ideas and collaboration.
I think the main point for me is how do we foster and maintain motivation? Part of the contributors feel demotivated by LLMs, others feel enabled. I think the "enablement" part is largely due to accessibility issues and poor contribution experience, which we have a direct impact on. I have effectively stopped all contributions to GHC due to the state of Gitlab and CI. So if we say that we prefer human written code etc, it's now our turn to provide an ecosystem where people are not even tempted to resort to LLMs, because usability and documentation is excellent anyway and there are people who can actively mentor. On the point of "Challenges" I feel the "Cognitive impact" part is a bit short. There's more going on than just deskilling. Studies have shown that just 10 minutes use causes a decline in reading comprehension. We have evidence of people with no prior mental health history developing severe psychosis. There's increasing research about impact of frequent AI interaction on human judgement... and it doesn't look good. And I feel this point is commonly overlooked: I think these tools can subvert judgement of senior engineers. And I would like that we call this concern out more specifically. Building trust in an open source community is often a long and painful process... the advent of LLMs is disrupting our trust relationships. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
