> *We prefer contributions with non-trivial LLM assistance to be labeled > LLM-assisted.*
I'm also starting to think this discussion has run its course. Are we now arguing about whether to say "prefer" or "must" and that difference is going to make the world whether people will still be contributing to GHC? We can't force people to disclose anything. As you've explained in your earlier emails, we have to assume good faith. And now you're turning around and say "oh, but we can't assume good faith, so it's not enforcable anyway". You gotta pick one. I think we should: - require LLM contributions to be labeled as such: this is important for context and is part of respectful collaboration - assume good faith: if people (actively) mislabel their contributions, we will notice and ask them to correct that I think a project is well within its right to make this demand and I do absolutely disagree with you that this labelling act in its own is hostile towards contributors. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
