Julian is not making this policy. He is saying how it applies *to him*. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 1:49 AM Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs < [email protected]> wrote:
> Julian, > > What I've been trying to illustrate multiple times now is that the > incentives you are creating through this policy are not protecting you, but > to the contrary make people think twice if they want to be honest with you > and declare LLM use (however tiny that might have been, or not). You are > even opening a game of "lets. see if I can use LLMs, not declare them, and > have Julian review them without noticing." What kind of incentive is this? > > If all you want to be protected is a labeling, the policy should simply > read: > > *We prefer contributions with non-trivial LLM assistance to be labeled > LLM-assisted.* > > If you really wanted to you could even add a fairly neutral: It helps > reviewers set expectations. > > This above wouldn't be enough for me though, as it does not say that we > discourage drive-by-llm-contributions, and expect people to fully own their > contributions. That however is completely irrelevant to you, as you don't > want to interact with any of those, and as such will disregard them as soon > as they are LLM-assisted labeled. > > And there is zero need for any form of judgement in either direction. You > can at your discretion just not review PRs that have the LLM assisted > label. If someone explicitly asks you to review a patch that has > LLM-assisted, you can let them know that you'd prefer them to find another > reviewer. Again, what I said before, there is *no right to review*. > > If you goal is to make sure people disclose their LLM use honestly, let's > not have a policy that is outright stigmatizing people who use LLMs > (because they did not share the "we strongly prefer hand crafted bytes" > sentiment). If on the other hand you want GHC to be a project that actively > pushes away (or makes people question if their contribution is welcome if > they use LLMs -- even a hint of doubt is enough to discourage people, It's > the UD part of FUD) a certain class of contributors with integrity, honesty > but also occasional LLM use, write a policy that not only states LLM > labeling, but also comes with a judgement call. > > Hence, and why I keep coming back to this, I don't see this as a > compromise, even though I can understand why you see it as such. I see this > as a judgement (and classification) of people, which is what I reject. > > What is most perplexing to me is, that you multiple times say you want > more collaboration, but the incentives you seem to lay out, seem to > contradict this. The incentives seem to push people away, make them > question whether or not they are truly welcome or just tolerated. Maybe > I'm fundamentally misunderstanding what you consider collaboration. To me > this is fundamentally building trust between people. Throwing code over > the wall, however conceived, is not that. Entering into a discussion, > while providing contributions is closer to that. However putting up > incentives to make contributors start out in the defensive is not that, > insinuating distrust is not that, it all just leads to a corrupted > interaction, not collaboration. If one party always has to assume they > could at any point be accused of something, that they simply can not prove > to be incorrect, we create a hostile environment. There is a reason why we > generally follow in dubio pro reo and assume good-faith. This policy moves > us from good-faith not outright to bad-faith, but into that direction; I > object to _that_. > > Best, > Moritz > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 12:00, Julian Ospald via ghc-devs < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > You clearly state that LLM usage for you is a signal of distrust. >> >> Yes, I personally distrust patches with heavy LLM assistance and I do not >> believe people who say "but I know what I am doing". >> >> This also means that I don't want to spend my free time interacting with >> such works. So who is protecting me? >> >> The disclosure does that: it allows me to just walk away and have someone >> else look at the patch. And it definitely does protect you, because my >> negative bias won't be able to drive decisions (unlike in my own projects, >> where I outright reject such patches). >> >> I'm confused why you don't see that this is literally the only compromise >> that is possible. I won't be contributing to projects, where people do not >> want to disclose their LLM use, even if it's "well, I use it all the time". >> That helps me set the expectations. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] > -- brandon s allbery kf8nh [email protected]
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
