@davidgerard @ossguy @wwahammy @silverwizard @firefly_lightning @cwebber @david_chisnall In fact, people lying about LLM usage may be the best outcome: code review continues as usual based on the merits of the contribution and track record of the contributor, deniability for the project, legal responsibility lies with the contributor, and any possible benefits of the LLM usage accrue to the project without challenging the norms of copyright and licensing.
6
Replies
4
Boosts
@davidgerard @wwahammy @silverwizard @firefly_lightning @cwebber Yes, which is why it's important to allow people to identify when they have used LLM/AI assistants to help. New contributors will see this is the norm, and then it will be easier to help them, because we'll know a bit about where any potential knowledge gaps might be coming from.
If we "ban" LLM/AI-assisted contributions, people will use them anyway but hide their use, which is a trickier problem to solve.
@ossguy @davidgerard @wwahammy @silverwizard @firefly_lightning @cwebber
Just going to leave my longer reply here: https://social.arthfach.com/@arthfach/statuses/01KPGDV9XPS7ZZCN3REG4NQZFY
In short - developers aren't the only stakeholders. Openly allowing liars, grifters, and unethical people into a project absolutely punishes those of us who depend on ethical and trustworthy behavior.
@ossguy @firefly_lightning @davidgerard @wwahammy @cwebber so is the theory "we should accept people who have been abused by big tech and think LLM usage is ok, and we must help them understand why it's not", or is "we must accept LLM code commits because there's people who think they're ok and the longterm damage is a risk we'll just need to figure out later"?
I keep thinking it's the very reasonable first one, which I don't think is up for debate. But you and Bradley keep implying it's the second, which *is* up for debate.
@ossguy @wwahammy @silverwizard @firefly_lightning @cwebber Liars who misrepresent their work are a social problem dealt with by banning the liar. This is not an excuse to let slop in.
@davidgerard @ossguy @wwahammy @silverwizard @firefly_lightning @cwebber @david_chisnall In fact, people lying about LLM usage may be the best outcome: code review continues as usual based on the merits of the contribution and track record of the contributor, deniability for the project, legal responsibility lies with the contributor, and any possible benefits of the LLM usage accrue to the project without challenging the norms of copyright and licensing.
@jonmsterling @davidgerard @ossguy @wwahammy @silverwizard @firefly_lightning @david_chisnall It's a perverse incentive situation that this may be true. I can't say I'm comfortable with it, though.
