Bruno Haible via Gnulib discussion list <[email protected]> writes: > To help current and future evaluations of such a patch, it would be useful > if the submitter states — either in the git commit message or in the mailing > list post — explicitly: > "I used LLM 'Claude'. The output of the LLM was textual only, no code. > (I ensured this by requesting no code, in my prompt.) > I produced the code contained in this patch myself."
+1 I think documenting what involvement the LLM had in a contribution is useful, and ought to be a requirement in our policy. I find using a LLM to come up with coding ideas something that seems hard to object to from a GNU/freedom perspective -- but I also wouldn't rule that out completely, on grounds similar to SaaS-objections. We shouldn't reject using new tools, but instead find out what the acceptable and ethical ways to use them are. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
