On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 04:43:29PM +0300, Wolfgang Jeltsch via ghc-devs wrote: > Am Di 21.07.2026 14:32 schrieb Tom Ellis via ghc-devs: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 04:24:53PM +0300, Wolfgang Jeltsch via ghc-devs > > wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Would it help if the text were changed to “… that constitutes human > > authorship for the purposes of this policy.”? That is, make it clear > > This would still mean using the term “authorship” in contradiction to > its actual meaning.
I think that is highly debatable, but probably a philosophical discussion out of scope for ghc-devs. > Why not be honest and say that GHC doesn’t require contributors to > be authors? Or just be silent about this issue? I have no objection to the policy being expressed in a way that doesn't refer to authorship. I disagree with the assessment that referring to authorship in the way it currently does makes the policy not "honest". I think claiming so probably violates the guidelines for respectful communication. Tom _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
