Brandon, yes, but only because two things from the policy play together: P3, and P4. An insinuation that human-written code[1] is somehow superior to LLM-assisted code, and the requirement to declare such assisted code. That makes it not a neutral declaration. That makes it a judgmental declaration.
The policy again states: we value hand written code higher than LLM written/assisted/... code *and* we require you to declare the use of LLMs. That is a materially different statement to: we require you to declare the use of LLMs. I hope this clarifies the confusion. Best, Moritz -- [1]: Sidenote: P3 states human authored, and then uses human-written. From context the assumption has to be that human-written is supposedly the opposite of LLM-written. Hence no-llm assisted code. On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 14:52, Brandon Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
