On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 5:55 AM Matthew Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > To reduce the heat on this issue I have: > > a) Deleted my comment on the PR, and my reference to that comment. > b) Reposted as a Gist so people reading this thread can see what the > discussion was about : > https://gist.github.com/matthew-brett/a9b43c7266e0fb4f773677ca838fa920 > > Thank you. That is very much appreciated. > Further replies inline: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 2:36 AM Robert Kern via NumPy-Discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 6:29 PM Matthew Brett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Sorry - top posting - but: > >> > >> I delayed my reply because your accusation of bad faith seemed so > >> obviously unreasonable, that I had imagined someone might intervene on > >> my behalf, but it seems not. > >> > >> As I understand it, you're saying that my - rather silly - master plan > >> was to post an AI-generated response that was so obviously wrong that > >> it would persuade everyone that AI was bad. And to add to my > >> incompetence, I sent a link to another conversation I'd had with the > >> AI, where it did better, undermining my own case. > > > > > > No, I don't suspect that you have any master plan to convince anyone by > this example alone. > > You wrote before that "Rather, it increasingly seems like you are > strawmanning a particularly bad use of LLMs in order to make a point > that LLMs are bad." as the explanation for why you now suspect I was > acting in bad faith. I presume from the "this example alone" that you > still think I have such a program. As I said before - that's a very > silly program. What's the idea here - that I try and persuade my > competent and intelligent colleagues of such a ridiculous binary by > sneaking in bad examples, when of course y'all have seen many such > examples yourselves? It's the price of AI admission. As Matthew > Rocklin put it, in his very useful article advocating AI for code > generation: "LLMs generate a lot of junk" : > https://matthewrocklin.com/ai-zealotry/#why-ai . Yet it is clear to me > they will also offer benefit, if used with care. > In the interest of playing the ball and not the man, and refocusing on offering a path forward to return to productive conversation (one that I am glad that we have taken), I had deleted a paragraph where I detailed the patterns I am seeing. If you'd like to talk about it in private, I am at your service. > >> I think you're also somehow saying if I had not posted the AI response > >> on the issue, but in a Gist, then everything would have been fine, and > >> no bad faith need be assumed. > > > > > > Yes. Precisely, it's the doubling and tripling down. If you had deleted > the PR response with an apology, we'd have gone back to productively > critiquing and possibly improving your technique. It's the fact that you > took it live on our project, knowing that it was Not Even Wrong, and not > acknowledging it when that action was criticized. > > But why oh why would you pitch in with this fierce and insulting > diagnosis of my motivation, and demand an immediate apology, rather > than saying - "OK - I get the point you're trying to make - but it's > not well put and I think you made it in the wrong place, let's move it > elsewhere?" I don't believe that's far off from where I started: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/KWQEPTMZV7KNK42IGPXSY4AUJS7ZAHXU/ Don't you have some responsibility for keeping the > conversation calm and civil? I mean - to the project if not to me. > I think you agree that copyright is an important and difficult subject > that needs careful reflection - we're not going to get there with this > level of distrust. > > Cheers, > > Matthew -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ 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]
