We all seem to recognize that interacting with LLM generated code or documentation makes a significant number of contributors uncomfortable. If LLM generated code and documentation makes it into the codebase, then it will become practically impossible to avoid and thus it will make a significant number of contributors uncomfortable. Why, then, do we keep considering to allow such behavior?
Cheers, Jaro > On 26 Jul 2026, at 10:27, Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > Thank you. I think this gets us considerably closer. > > There is an important difference to me between: > > We strongly prefer human-written code. > > and: > > Some contributors strongly prefer human-written code. > > I could live quite comfortably with the latter. It acknowledges that the > community is not monolithic and that this preference genuinely exists, > without the project itself adopting that preference as its own. > > I would be less comfortable with “a large portion” or “a majority,” because > those are empirical claims that I don’t think the GitLab issue establishes. > To make such a claim, we would first need a representative consultation and > agreement on who constitutes the relevant community and is eligible to > participate. > > Perhaps wording along these lines would capture the concern without > overclaiming: > > Some contributors strongly prefer human-written code and documentation and > may be uncomfortable reviewing or maintaining LLM-assisted contributions. > > That seems factual, acknowledges their position, and leaves the project > itself neutral between contributors who hold different views. > > Best, > Moritz > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 2:20 PM <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > On 07/26/2026 8:57 AM CEST Moritz Angermann <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > Human-written: Each and every substantive character of the final text was >> > manually composed by a human. No assistive tooling was used to produce the >> > substantive wording itself. >> > >> > Machine-written:Each and every substantive character of the final text was >> > produced by a machine without meaningful human intervention. This is, to >> > me, the diametric opposite ofhuman-written. >> > >> > Human-delegated: A human deliberately delegates the production of some or >> > all of the substantive text to a machine. >> > >> > Human-guided: A human iteratively guides the production by providing >> > prompts, constraints, corrections, examples, and feedback. >> > >> > Human-supervised: A human continuously evaluates, accepts, rejects, or >> > redirects the machine’s output while it is being produced. >> > >> > Human-edited: A human substantially modifies machine-produced text after >> > generation before adopting it. >> > >> > Human-authored: A human exercises judgement over, understands, selects, >> > revises, adopts, and ultimately takes responsibility for the resulting >> > work, regardless of how individual parts of it were initially produced. >> >> All of your definitions here, except the first, seem to include large >> sections of the final result being written by an LLM. >> >> I think "Human-written" could be expanded to include things like, "oh, I >> copy-pasted this 3-word phrase that came out of a conversation with an LLM >> chatbot," but I agree with the previous policy proposal: "By all means use >> an LLM to generate ideas, points to cover, and structure, but the best way >> to take responsibility for every word is to write every word." >> >> Cheers, >> Tom
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
