Just want to chime in and say that Moritz is not the only contributor who wants to use LLMs in the future. Just because he seems to be the only pro-LLM person commenting in what I personally perceive as a very unproductive discussion does not mean that there aren't any others. It is unreasonable to take representation in this discussion as a proxy for how many people are against or in favour of the policy.
Aside from that, I share the post-apocalyptic concerns about LLMs (climate, alignment), however it is completely baffling to me how banning LLMs from GHC development would help with that. An analogy: It's a bit like wanting to prevent a nuclear war between the US and China by vetoing nuclear power plants in the UK. I'm not advocating for the latter either, but it is not a problem you can solve bottom-up. I think people just have to accept their powerlessness in this matter and hope for the best, or establish more effective political channels. GHC development should not become a casualty to the new LLM-enabled economics in this process. That would not solve any problems that LLMs could potentially inflict on human kind. Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo., 27. Juli 2026, 01:18: > > 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. >> > > I see you still have not understood the point I have been arguing all > along. I can not in good conscience contribute, advocate or support a > project that institutionalized discrimination. Whether that discrimination > is based on gender, workflow, religion, language, skin colour, > disabilities, intelligence, ... > > My whole argument is fundamentally about _any_ form of discrimination, and > orthogonal to LLMs, although this particular discussion has centered around > LLMs. I somehow doubt you are ok with discrimination. > > 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 > > > Yes, I can spare empathy, those are valid concerns. Again, discrimination > does not fix this in my view. It does not move us closer to less LLM use, > just because the GHC project prefers one workflow over another. The only > way forward for that would be lobbying politics to prohibit the creation of > Data Centers (in the context of LLMs). I don't see how "human written" > (but you can use LLMs for research, ...) moves the needle here. Can you > explain how the changes you have been arguing for address this issue? > > >> (not to mention code quality)? > > > Have you read my emails? Where have I argued for lower code quality? Where > have I argued for "slop slinging"? If anything I've repeatedly argued for > higher quality and against poor drive-by contributions. > _______________________________________________ > 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]
