I don't understand the relevance of both quotes given here; the AI - education relationship has nothing to do here. On the other hand, the damage of social media on students and the upcoming generation is documented in, now, hundreds of studies in the last decade. Yet here we are all having twitter/mastodon/tiktok/bluesky/instagram/whatevers including all maintainers, our children have them, we even have official numpy scipy accounts. So that surely looks like gravity to me. And I, for one, have no interest in what Linus Torvalds thinks about any social issue given his track record and handling conflicts.
Using LLM to find copyright violations is, with all respect, one of the most ferrous irony I have seen lately. Did you check whether JAX and PyArrow claim by the LLM is correct before you accuse the PR author, is there an actual code resemblance confirmed by a human? (not blaming you obviously but I am sure you see the recursion you are creating here) I agree with Chuck. On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 11:52 AM Matthew Brett via NumPy-Discussion < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 4:42 AM Juan Nunez-Iglesias <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2026, at 1:45 PM, Charles R Harris via NumPy-Discussion > wrote: > > > > +1. The interaction on that PR as a whole struck me as harsh, verging on > rude. > > > > > > It certainly shows the need for developing a unified policy sooner > rather than later! *sigh* > > > > I did want to push back on this statement from the PR: > > > > Therefore, if any of the code included in the PR was generated by AI, > > > > That is an extreme position, if we do that we will end up with no > maintainers because everyone coming up will be using AI. > > > > > > I want to push back specifically on this point because it is not a good > basis from which to determine policy. We can, and I would argue we must, > play a part in whether "everyone" will be using AI. I'll lift this quote > (via Juan Luis Cano Rodriguez[1]) from "Resisting Enchantment and > Determinism: How to critically engage with AI university guidelines" [2]: > > > > Enchanted by determinism, some see the adoption and use of generative AI > in education as inexorable as the effects of the laws of physics. This > perspective nudges us towards helplessness and acceptance: no one can > change gravity. Besides, it would be absurd to ask whether gravity is good > or if we want it. > > [...] > > We must not be persuaded by the false premise of a human-made artefact > being inevitable. > > I agree - and it's a point that has been well-made by your quote, and > by others, that "accept the inevitable" is a poor argument, and easily > deployed by people who are trying to sell you something. > > You may have seen Linus Torvalds' constant complaints about the hype > surrounding AI. > > In this case, what worries me is that we may be drifting into > accepting the idea that it is inevitable that we developers will > switch from mainly writing code ourselves, to mainly asking AI to > write code for us. I don't think that's inevitable, and neither, > apparently, does Torvalds (see quotes above). I suspect, if we do go > in that direction, we will find (from another quote above) that our > skills in writing code will start to atrophy, and this is likely to > mean that our learning, and our skills in reviewing code will start to > atrophy as well. See the Anthropic study quoted above, and > references therein for more on AI-generation and learning deficits. > In other words, more code, more subtle bugs, fewer developers who > understand the code-base, and fewer developers coming to the project > with sufficient training to read and review code. > > But luckily, all hype aside, we have plenty of time to take this > slowly and see how this develops. There's no plausible world in > which Numpy suffers significantly from taking a measured approach to > AI-generated code, over the next few years. There are various > plausible worlds where it suffers from being too credulous of AI code > quality, or it's ability to train developers, or its tendency to > generate code that is subject to copyright. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org > Member address: [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org Member address: [email protected]
