Tom, your latest reply helped me understand something I hadn’t appreciated
before.

When I wrote “otherwise acceptable workflows,” you replied that this is
exactly the point under discussion.

> "Otherwise acceptable" is, of course, the point of discussion here.

Does that mean that, in your view, LLM-assisted authorship is *not* an
otherwise acceptable workflow, even when the contributor satisfies all of
the policy’s requirements around disclosure, understanding, responsibility,
and quality?

If so, I think I finally understand why we have been talking past each
other. In that case, the disclosure requirement is no longer merely about
provenance; it identifies contributions produced by a workflow that the
project itself does not regard as fully acceptable.
Best,
 Moritz

On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 6:31 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Moritz, your LLM-generated table and bullet points are almost an exact
> rephrase of your previous email's points about Windows vs. Linux. Let's try
> to "disagree agreeably." I don't think it's helpful for me to rephrase my
> responses as well.
>
> > On 07/25/2026 1:38 PM CEST Moritz Angermann <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > At that point we are no longer talking about provenance. We are
> expressing an institutional preference between otherwise acceptable
> workflows.
>
> "Otherwise acceptable" is, of course, the point of discussion here.
>
> > If you believe the analogy fails, I would genuinely appreciate it if you
> could point out where this structural correspondence breaks down. I suspect
> that would help me understand your position much better.
>
> If you search this email thread for the word "emacs," you can find other
> people explaining why they find the analogy unhelpful. To one person's
> response you wrote "Here we disagree; but this would likely end up
> splitting hairs [...] and I have no interest in debating that." So let's
> agree to disagree!
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to