Am Di 21.07.2026 09:15 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs: > There has been a lot of discussion about GHC’s LLM policy on this GHC > thread: > > > <https://mailman.haskell.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/ZTHFWO4R4D5SKC2ZSMOG57K6JIAQ7CPC/> > > I have made quite few revisions in the light of this and other > conversations. Here is the draft again: > > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XxP8NXnbgr6faxXBXKw75zgoxIg-SzGv-Cvixyi-SH8/edit?usp=sharing> > > […] Any final thoughts?
I’ve read the current version of the draft in its entirety. My assessment is still more or less the same: I don’t agree with multiple things in this policy, but it seems to me that using such a policy for the time being is the only way to somehow move forward together. I sense that the text has notably moved towards the “pro-LLM” side. Sometimes this led to outright wrong statements, like the following: > If you carefully review and understand every line of code or > documentation produced with LLM assistance, revise it where necessary, > and take full responsibility for every line, that constitutes human > authorship. No, it doesn’t. An author is a person who *created* the work. If the work was assembled by an LLM, based on only guidelines by the person in question, then said person acted only as a reviewer, not as an author. Maybe the more LLM-friendly tone will enable some of the pro-LLM people to at least tolerate this policy. I think that we shouldn’t move even further into the pro-LLM direction to please even more people. All the best, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
