But you did assert > I accept that the net result will be that I'll be viewed as a second class contributor
(in Message-ID: < cakfdd-y7veclmqrv3p0p1f8vqr+djoaav1cgrzdag27p-u1...@mail.gmail.com>) with the implication from context that declaring LLM use (the specific topic you were responding to) does that. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:41 AM Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs < [email protected]> wrote: > Brandon, > > By extension, yes Julian _is_ the one driving this policy: > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/27433. > > Julian, > > You seem to want to misunderstand me. I have said nowhere that the > following labeling is on its own hostile towards contributors. > Whether or not it is > > > *We prefer contributions with non-trivial LLM assistance to be labeled > LLM-assisted.* > or > > *We require contributions with non-trivial LLM assistance to be labeled > LLM-assisted.* > > is pretty much irrelevant to me. I've defaulted to prefer, simply because > the ask is non-enforceable, and again, I feel very uncomfortable explicitly > dictating to others what to do. The implicit judgement from the policy is > not. You are fine with the policy because it reinforces your fundamental > belief (I assume) that LLMs are bad, horrible, corrupting, and society > damaging tech-bro inventions. I am not, because it tells people that they > are less welcome if they use LLMs in any form ("we strongly prefer"), I > object especially to *P3*'s wording in the document. You do not seem to > (want to?) understand that this can be understood as hostile language. The > policy ends up prescribing a process of how people should act, instead of > describing what we want. > > The policy exaggerated states: we want you to write code by hand without > the use of assistive technology, and if you end up writing code with > assistive technology, we think less of you. > > Now this (I assume) very much aligns with your worldview. But I > fundamentally disagree with that. It's not inclusive. > > Just FTR so you can refer back to this: > (1) Easy to review, high quality MRs. 🤝 > (2) Full responsibility. 🤝 > (3) Declaration/Labeling 🤝 -- although, again I don't think LLMs are > special here, it's a class of assistive technologies. > (4) Segregating contributors/judging them based on their preferences ❌ > > Best, > Moritz > > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 13:13, Julian Ospald via ghc-devs < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > *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] >> > _______________________________________________ > 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]
