All, Unless anyone has additional substantive comments, I think we've thoroughly explored this topic.
Based on the discussion, I do not see sufficient consensus or justification to replace our existing AI policy with a "No-AI" policy for the GNUstep core libraries. Accordingly, the existing policy will remain in effect. If, in the future, someone identifies a concrete legal, technical, or maintenance issue that the current policy fails to address, we can happily revisit the discussion. Until then, I think we've reached a reasonable balance between encouraging responsible use of AI-assisted tools and maintaining our standards for quality, review, provenance, and maintainability. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. Yours, GC P.S. I am going to add the AI policy to the repositories (similar to how we have LICENSE now) so that it is accessible if people need it. On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 9:10 AM Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > What your post does, I suspect without intending to, is illustrate a major > part of the issue I'm trying to address. > > Making accusations that people are using AI damages trust between > contributors. Any policy that produces false positives harms honest > contributors. Before adopting such a policy, we should ask whether we have > a reliable, objective way to distinguish AI-assisted code from > human-written code. If we do not, then the policy risks penalizing exactly > the people who are following the rules we put in place. > > If you're speaking about the "Language Log" citation, it wasn't a mistake. > I included that link because it discusses Chomsky’s views on AI more > broadly and provides some context. The substance of my argument relies on > the other references. My earlier confusion was based on the fact that I > feel as though all of them were relevant. > > Also, I would encourage people to actually read the material > cited, contrary to what the above post suggests. They are very informative > with respect to what we are discussing, and are thoughtful criticisms of > Chomsky's position. > > Indeed, I think this exchange also reinforces my broader point: we should > be careful about drawing conclusions based on assumptions. That’s true of > citations, and it’s equally true of contributors’ development workflows. > Yours, GC > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2026 at 4:48 AM Fred Kiefer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To save others the effort of reading that text: I think the second of >> your citations is completely unrelated to the discussion here. The other >> two are really interesting. >> And I wont speculate on how you came up with that wrong link :-) >> >> Cheers, >> Fred >> >> > Am 12.07.2026 um 00:57 schrieb Gregory Casamento < >> [email protected]>: >> > >> > The following citations support my argument: >> > Mitchell, M., & Wu, X. (2026). LLMs, reasoning and plagiarism. arXiv. >> https://arxiv.org/html/2601.02380v5 >> > Liberman, M. (2026). Chomsky and the origins of AI research. Language >> Log. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=72547 >> > Delétang, G. (2023). What Noam Chomsky gets wrong about AI. MLPowered. >> https://www.mlpowered.com/posts/chomsky-gets-wrong/ >> >> > > -- > Gregory Casamento > GNUstep Lead Developer / Black Lotus, Principal Consultant > http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com > https://www.openhub.net/languages/objective_c > -- Gregory Casamento GNUstep Lead Developer / Black Lotus, Principal Consultant http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com https://www.openhub.net/languages/objective_c
