Tom, > I've had to read far more LLM-generated text than I'd have liked. I had a distinct sensation that I was being asked to re-read the same points as had been previously made, padded out in length by an LLM.
Are you referring to emails and their contained text that I wrote? Best, Moritz On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 at 00:58, amindfv--- via ghc-devs <[email protected]> wrote: > Regretfully, and with full recognition of the need to balance the > preferences of many developers, I think the removal of a statement of > preference for human-written code takes the heart out of this document. It > would cause me to withdraw my support, for whatever that's worth. > > My perspective is that of a very infrequent contributor who follows > development on the Gitlab pretty closely, and values being able to do so. > > I understand the goal is to be as neutral as possible, but let me try and > make the case that even putting aside the social and environmental (etc.) > concerns, there is not an easy neutral position waiting for us: > > Take a very easy-to-imagine scenario: a person opens an MR, which begins > with: "Here's some code. It's been generated using AI, as has its > documentation. I stand by it." > The revised draft policy seems to assume that that only people whose > business that is are the author and whoever's willing to review the > proposed changes. I feel it would be a great loss to arrive at the GHC > Gitlab to read about a change of importance to me, and have to wade through > a long document alternating between "This code has been written with LLMs. > I stand by it." and "This review has been written with LLMs. I stand by > it." And in the end, documentation will be something many will read, even > if they have a strong distaste for AI writing style. A developer taking > responsibility for every word may still contribute to a reduction in > quality of text that many of us must later read. > > Already in discussing this policy, I've had to read far more LLM-generated > text than I'd have liked. I had a distinct sensation that I was being asked > to re-read the same points as had been previously made, padded out in > length by an LLM. We then got confirmation of that at the end of a 792-word > email (that's 4 double-spaced pages). I'd find it ironic if the LLM usage > policy were changed substantially because of a large number of emails, from > a small number of people, with a large contribution of "assistive > technology." Everyones' points shold be considered and valued, but there's > a risk that the people in favor of text-generating machines may drown out > the other voices by word count. > > If the preference of GHC developers is to use LLMs, then this policy may > be fine. However, I thought the previous policy -- which was very open to > LLM contributions but made a statement of preference for a community of > human developers speaking to each other through code and prose -- was a > much better basis for community standards in a time where LLMs make it very > difficult to tell good from "good enough," and another person from "person > enough." > > - Tom > > > > On 07/21/2026 10:15 AM CEST Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Friends > > > > 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), > I hope in a close to final form. Any final thoughts? > > > > thanks > > > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
