Julian, If we assume for simplicity we have two distinct groups: (a) people open to LLMs (b) people against LLMs,
And I’ll count myself into (a) and you, Julian, into (b). As it stands: You are asking something of me. Specifically that I accept (1) to be in a group of de-skilled, less valued than hand written code contributors because I don’t share your absolutist view on strongly preferred hand written code, and (2) accept your characterization of LLMs as harmful. What am I asking of you? Best, Moritz On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 7:26 PM Julian Ospald via ghc-devs < [email protected]> wrote: > 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] >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
