Julian, I've quoted your email on purpose. You clearly state that LLM usage for you is a signal of distrust. The policy itself has a strong bias towards human written code. It does not protect people who use LLMs in any form; it tolerates LLM usage, and it classifies LLM users. It protects, and codifies a bias, while not outright banning LLMs. I have no issue with attribution, you'll find plenty of comments/notes with attributions from me.
Again, my point is that it sets incentives that I believe are not aligned with your preferred outcome. Best, Moritz On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 11:34, Julian Ospald via ghc-devs < [email protected]> wrote: > > Truthfully discloses LLM generation => Additional scrutiny or stricter > review, because we distrust you > > This is not what the policy says. > > Even pre-LLM it was common sense and common courtesy to disclose when you > copy-pasted code from other sources, be it stackoverflow or some other > project. I do that and it's also a legal requirement for a fair number of > open source licenses and it doesn't matter whether you reviewed all of > that... it doesn't absolve you from declaring it. It also helps the > reviewer get more context: where do the ideas originate from, how much > effort was potentially involved in certain parts of the patches... those > are all fuzzy intuitions... not final judgements. > > Whether LLM generated (or copy-pasted) code needs more scrutiny or not > depends on a lot of factors. It may very well require more scrutiny, it > depends on the scope, the workflow, the patch owner, etc. Withholding that > information is simply poor collaboration. You're interacting with another > human and their time and energy. Your reviewer may not care or they may. We > won't be able to impose opinions on anyone, but this disclosure is > essential for other people to get the context they need to conduct a > review. It doesn't say whether the reviewer will be negatively biased > against AI or not. This discussion won't change those positions. But it > will set boundaries as to how they can treat you: they won't be able to > reject your patch just because it's AI generated. > > So in a way, this policy is trying to protect both sides. > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
