On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 11:14:44PM +0200, amindfv--- via ghc-devs wrote: > > 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.
Let me see if I understand the argument you might be trying to make here. On the one hand, Moritz is talking about some action *he* (Did he mention his team? I don't see it.) cannot in good conscience take. He is not talking about forcing anyone else (not even his team members, as far as I can see) to take or not take particular actions. > 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)? Are you here giving justification for people who, based on their personal morals, want to force others to take or not take particular actions when contributing to GHC? If so, these two scenarios are not actually commensurate, are they? If not, I'm not sure what you're saying. Maybe you're not making an argument at all, just requesting the discussion be conducted with empathy, which of course is a fine request. > > 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. Unfortunately it's not clear to me that either the 392-word AI assisted email nor the 3-sentence non-AI-assisted email have communicated well on the matter. Jaro's email in particular, although I could read it fully, seemed to beg for further explanation. I have only skimmed Moritz's recent communications, and it's hard for me to understand the point he is trying to make. Tom [Disclaimer: I am financially invested in increased LLM use in various ways] _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
