>From what I understand you are worried that LLM users will be stigmatized for >their LLM use, even if their use is entirely reasonable, adheres to the policy >and the code is well understood, free of bugs and so on.
If we treat LLM assisted contributions differently from non-LLM assisted contributions, then this is a somewhat implicit signal of distrust: you used an LLM, therefore we will penalize you with stricter reviews, require additional proof, etc. That may make contributors feel excluded or like second-class citizens, even if they did all the work necessary and used LLMs responsibly. How code was "conceived" is entirely private and is no ones business: I could have had a vision during my dream or found the code in a drift bottle, deciphered it and are now submitting it to you. All that matters is that I affirm: **I own the code, intellectually and legally... I can explain it and I can reproduce it manually if need be.** I think given infinite resources, this would be an ok position. We would process all MRs in the same fashion, mechanically and not assume anything. But the reality is that collaboration in large projects is very often trust based. Everyone knows that Simon likes to rewrite the simplifier and that he's intimately familiar with it and so people would adjust their reviews based on the context. If he would start delegating such rewrites to an LLM... the situation would be quite different now, wouldn't it? Now it's not about "does Simon know what he is doing?"... we know he knows the subsystem, but it's suddenly harder to tell how much *effort* went into a particular part of a patch! This is significant and we can't really ignore this. But I am sure Simon would write that down in his MR happily: "I had claude help me with this humongous task, can you people please look more carefully over this part of the patch?". What this policy is saying in spirit (I think) is exactly that: please help us understand which part of the patch needs more egregious review. Which part are you very familiar with and confident about? So we must rely on self-disclosure. We can't force this disclosure anyway, so we simply assume that patch authors are truthful. And yet, I still think that the wording of the policy is largely fine: - P1 mentions that effort matters and reviewers time needs to be respected - P2 says explicitly "We value the contribution itself, regardless of how it was produced" - P3 says we prefer human authorship, simply because we're more familiar with the dynamics and the process... I think this is totally fair - P4 asks for self-disclosure, but clearly says it's "an acknowledgement, not a weakness" Given that I have way more strong opinions on this and can still get behind this policy, I would suggest that it's a good deal for everyone. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
