Hi Moritz and Julian, Are you proposing this as an alternative to Simon's draft policy?
Cheers, Teo On Tue, 28 Jul 2026, at 11:14 AM, Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs wrote: > Dear friends, > > I've spent the last two days discussing the topic of LLM contributions in > detail with Julian at length over video. As the discussion over the last few > weeks have shown that it's very hard to find agreement on a common policy, we > have tried to outline what we consider a statement that covers at least both > of our views. With Julian and I representing a fairly wide spectrum of the > positions, we hope that this may provide a statement that many can subscribe > to. > > We have tried to keep it short, and not get distracted by specificies of > workflows, quality standards, and definitions of terms, which seem to > distract from the core that we want to address. > > Respectfully, > Julian and Moritz > > > ## A shared statement on our environment in the face of LLMs > > As human-LLM interaction is becoming more common, we find ourselves debating > not only our technical goals, but also our understanding of open source > community and values. > > This is why we all agree that we want to participate in an environment... > > 1. that inspires the exchange of technical ideas and knowledge between humans > 2. that is supportive and accessible to the point that no one should feel the > need to use LLM in the first place > 3. that facilitates building trust relationships with one another > 4. that rewards technical excellence and authenticity > 5. that demands all interactions to be genuine and respectful > > We recognize that using LLMs responsibly is challenging. Not only can they be > used for abuse[^1][^2], but they may also cause the quality of communication > and intellectual engagement to decline[^3]. > > There is an emerging body of scientific literature supporting these concerns > about negative effects on psychological, cognitive, real-world performance, > etc. We recommend everyone to familiarize themselves with the current state > of research. Here are a few links for your consideration. > > * [How AI Impacts Skill Formation](https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20245) > * [AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent > Performance](https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04721) > * [From Future of Work to Future of Workers: Addressing Asymptomatic AI Harms > for Dignified Human-AI Interaction](https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21920) > * [AI Competency Erosion: Understanding Expertise > Decay](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-11748-9_5) > * [Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI > Assistant for Essay Writing Task](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872) > * [Investigating the Effects of LLM Use on Critical Thinking Under Time > Constraints: Access Timing and Time > Availability](https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.08849) > > _(This list does not claim to be comprehensive; it is merely meant to provide > you with an initial stepping stone into the current research)._ > > Moreover we are especially concerned about their potential negative effects > on open source communities[^4], human communication and collaboration. > > We strive to be an inclusive community and judge contributions on their > merits. This includes the use of LLMs as long as it does not disturb our > envisioned environment outlined earlier. > > We recognize that there are users and contributors of this project who would > rather not interact with LLM generated content at all. To balance the > preferences and self-determination of the diverse group of contributors, we > require that the use of LLMs to generate content is clearly attributed as > such, failure to do so may result in contributions to be rejected. We > understand that this may not be satisfactory to everyone, since we cannot > completely avoid exposure to LLM generated content. However, we will neither > compromise our quality standards, nor allow any disruption of human-human > interaction by the use of technology. > > Examples of inappropriate use are: > > - feeding someone's email into an LLM to generate an answer > - creating automated LLMs written bug reports that a volunteer has to work > through to determine if it has any value at all > - generating large patches that take more time to review by the project than > it took you to create > > We want this to be a project of human interaction, of shared curiosity and a > beacon of engineering excellence. > > These are the shared values we stand by today as a project, and they may > evolve along with our shared experiences and emerging scientific evidence > over time. > > > Julian Ospald > Moritz Angermann > > -- > [^1]: https://openai.com/index/disrupting-malicious-ai-uses/ > [^2]: https://www.infoq.com/news/2026/02/ai-floods-close-projects/ > [^3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06166 > [^4]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15494 > _______________________________________________ > 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]
