> On 07/26/2026 1:57 AM CEST Moritz Angermann <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
I'll just quote myself from a previous email: "Currently 50% of 'voters' on the GHC GitLab feel that _any_ LLM usage is inappropriate. I think it would be valuable to consider how to make a policy that doesn't just please the people who want to use LLMs [...], but also recognizes that when a person makes an LLM contribution to the GHC GitLab, more than* half of the users there are thinking 'I wish you hadn't done that.'" Saying "the contributor satisfies all of the policy’s requirements around disclosure, understanding, responsibility, and quality" puts the cart before the horse: policies about quality and understanding will be influenced by the community's feelings about LLMs. Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
