I fully agree with you Julian, and until we have proof that there are
large-scale cases of calculator-induced psychoses and cognitive
degeneration I'd like to suggest that we stop with the false equivalences.
LLMs are a powerful tool which means that, much like a power tool, it
must be handled with care and safety precautions. Otherwise you're just
going to harm yourself and possibly others.
On a personal touch, I worry that contributors who absolutely rely on
LLMs will be excluded from participating when the token price ceases to
be subsidized, and AI companies are brought back to reality and must
make profits, if not break even.
Another reason why cultivating the contributors is more important that
getting code merged at any cost.
Le 16/07/2026 à 14:25, Julian Ospald via ghc-devs a écrit :
No one in *this* entire thread has been suggesting to neglect a patch
purely on the basis of LLM use.
The policy very clearly argues against this.
Although often mischaracterized as a loud minority, there's a fair
number of people who were in principle pro a blanket LLM ban. You're
talking to them right now and if the policy is watered down to "well,
quality" I don't see what any of us gets out of this. Why should we
meet you half-way?
Other communities (see Agda) have effectively split over this. And this
thread really makes it look to me like any concerns on LLM use or
additional burden on LLM users is seen as an attempt to "segregate",
shame or violate those peoples privacy.
I find this line of argumentation to be false and actively misleading.
Even the current AI policy demands additional burden on LLM users. It
is absolutely reasonable and common sense, unless we go back to
comparing them with calculators and ignore the large body of scientific
evidence of risks and the massive negative fallout in other open source
projects.
In order to salvage *some* positive use, we have to be mindful about
its use, not ignorant. This is not discrimination, this is caution.
On Thu, 2026-07-16 at 17:17 +0530, Harendra Kumar via ghc-devs wrote:
I am sure there are many others like you and they are very capable
potential contributors. We do have opposing views in the community
but I do not think anyone should feel discouraged to contribute
because of those who hold opposing views, it will be detrimental to
the project, I am sure they will find enough supporters. The real
problem starts only if an otherwise good patch is rejected or
totally neglected purely on the basis of LLM use.
-harendra
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 14:58, Tom Ellis via ghc-devs
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 08:44:10AM -0000, Julian Ospald via ghc-
devs wrote:
I think it is the human culture from which those ideas and
products
originate and Haskell has given a home to many engaged and
curious
people. We want to keep those people, whether they use LLMs or
not.
To add my personal point of view on this, it is only the advent of
LLMs that has made me think I could possibly become a contributor
to
GHC. I wouldn't have the stamina to remain engaged otherwise. A
policy that discourages LLM use, in effect if not in word, makes it
less likely I will ever contribute to GHC. (The same goes for most
projects actually.)
Tom
_______________________________________________
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]
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
Hécate ✨
WWW: https://glitchbra.in
RUN: BSD
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
