> On 07/26/2026 11:48 AM CEST Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs > <[email protected]> wrote:
> I cannot in good conscience contribute to, or advocate for, a project that > institutionally ranks otherwise acceptable contributors or their work in this > way. So, you're willing to change your (and your team's) contribution to a project based on your personal morals, and you are advocating changes to GHC's contribution policy based on your personal sense of morality as well. Can you spare a bit of empathy for people who are concerned about, e.g. global warming or loss of drinking water due to LLMs (not to mention code quality)? > I am not arguing that anyone should be forced to use LLMs, nor that anyone > should be compelled to review LLM-assisted contributions. Contributors remain > free to review—or not review—whatever they choose. Just as they are today. With this sentence you reveal you haven't assimilated, at all, the point Jaro made in his 3-sentence email. (Nor the one I and several others have written previously.) Instead you wrote a 392-word reply, which we all had to read to realize you were just restating your points from your _34 other emails_ on this list. The next-most-prolific contributor here is SPJ with 15 emails. - Tom _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
