llms are manic interns that need interactive supervision when working on genuinely new stuff. no matter the mechanism of authorship, a human is underwriting their contrib or its trash. its about responsible contributions.
eg recently i found / triggered a very insane silent data corruption bug in pytorches compiler in a project of mine, and there was no way i could have bisected into a minimal repro and a one line patch without tools. but at the same token no model would have been able to quickly find the root cause without me micro managing it like a confused intern who needs conceptual hand holding. (turns out having your dimensions all be distinct primes near powers of two really finds a lot of pytorch bugs ;) i have found that with the right setup, are an amazing assistive device (it helps me skip needing social context as much for getting ideas out of my head) i admittedly am biased in that im building my cross platform multi device harness/toolchain for llm stuff i hope can commercialize to support myself i will say that telling these models that they should treat icfp functional pearls as a reference for design taste to be helpful when using those tools. at the end of the day, if a tool helps you do things you care about in a way that you’re happy with and doesnt impose on your collaborators, who cares?!? that said, with string suoer vision these tools are incredible for system design experiments even if the generated code is meh On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 7:01 AM Wolfgang Jeltsch via ghc-devs < [email protected]> wrote: > Am So 02.08.2026 21:28 schrieb Moritz Angermann: > > > Clearly, the side that wants to do something different should fork, > > > right? > > > > Who is doing something different though; I guess that might be seen by > > both sides? “The ‘others’ want to use LLMs” vs. “The ‘others’ want to > > impose additional restrictions”? > > I think it’s not so difficult to see who wants to do something different > here. The “anti-LLM” people want to develop GHC as it was developed in > the past; the “pro-LLM” people want to develop it in a different way. > > The restrictions that the “anti-LLM” people want to impose aren’t > “additional”, given that they would only preserve the previous way of > development: they’d just rule out a fundamentally different way of > development, which hadn’t been explicitly ruled out previously only > because it didn’t exist. > > > Ultimately though I don’t think it matters much. The ones with the > > keys to gitlab.haskell.org will ultimately decide. > > I’ve been wondering repeatedly who will ultimately decide. Of course, > the ones with the keys to the GitLab server can enforce any way of > development that someone decided for; so in particular they can enforce > what they decided for themselves. However, will they do this? I don’t > think they will, but rather they’ll try to implement a decision that > “pleases the community”. Which apparently doesn’t exist. In fact, what > I’ve been seeing is that no decision has been made for quite some time. > There’s only this ongoing discussion, whose only result regarding the AI > policy proposal seems to be that it has been shifted towards the LLM > side. > > All the best, > Wolfgang > _______________________________________________ > 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]
