Hi Arno,
Am 01.06.26 um 10:36 schrieb Arno Waschk via Discussions on LilyPond
development:
This seems wrong at least at two points:
1. The automatic assumption that any support of AI makes a contributor
not read his contribution, not understand his contribution, and the
whole thing ununderstandable to a degree which can not be remedied in
the same way as hand written code is completely irrational. AI code
can be bad. Manual code can be bad. I produced both kinds. Reasonable
people read their code before submitting, or, say, try to put it in
shape. Assuming people lose their reasonable minds by using an AI
summary of a local MR index is, sorry, ridiculous.
Nowhere did I state that.
It's a fact that AI assistance makes it /possible/ to generate large
amounts of working code that the human contributor doesn't fully
understand. This was practically impossible before, so it creates a new
situation.
This becomes a problem since a system (like with LilyPond) that relies
on human code review (together with a very small pool of active
reviewers) can easily be overwhelmed by the amount of code that can be
produced with the new technology. So we must find reasonable guidelines
how to deal with the new technology.
I view Dan's question as an honest attempt do find a solution. I'm
surprised that you construed his e-mail (which also contained the
sentence "I just wouldn't want the uncertainty to last so long that a
capable contributor gets frustrated and leaves.") as an expression of
"academic AI hate" or "something personal".
Furthermore, I also explicitly pointed out that there are various kinds
of AI assistance; so my opinion was considerably more nuanced than you
represent it here.
2. What you wrote basically means, that code can be trusted blindly
once it was written by hand. This is but a joke.
No, it doesn't; please don't misrepresent what I wrote.
On the contrary, what I wrote was this:
"This is not just a question about AI contributions: It means that
LilyPond also shouldn't contain human-written code of the "I added that
line and then the problem somehow went away, knock on wood" type. It's
of course hard to enforce this, but a thorough review where questions
can be raised and must be dealt with makes it more probable."
Lukas
