Re: Nominations for Anthropic’s Claude for Open Source program

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Carlos O'Donell <[email protected]> writes:

> Developers,
>
> Anthropic is generously offering 6 months of Claude Max 20x to Free and O=
pen
> Source Software projects to support the FOSS ecosystem. These tools can be
> incredibly helpful with reviewing upstream code, evaluating the conforman=
ce of
> a particular interface to a standard, or just for your own learning and
> exploring the implementation of the project or subsystem.

Several developers often don't even refer to Coverity, but say "a static
analyzer service" or similar. I think maybe some discussion should be
had before naming a service (and giving some publicity) given this
precedent, though it's a bit late now.

>
> If you are an established, active contributor to the GNU Toolchain and are
> interested in having access to Claude Max 20x under Anthropic=E2=80=99s C=
laude for Open
> Source program, please respond to this email thread with a short descript=
ion of
> how you would utilize the access and the potential impact on the GNU Tool=
chain.
> The program's slots are limited and David Edelsohn and I plan to review t=
he
> proposals. Please keep in mind that these are individual grants from Anth=
ropic
> to you personally. If you are approved you=E2=80=99ll get an email from A=
nthropic with
> further instructions.
>
> While the current GNU Project policy is not to accept LLM-generated conte=
nt in
> the projects, that still leaves other uses like bug triage, patch review,=
 and
> research as ways to use these tools.

.. but also, I think we probably need to have a policy discussion about
this. I hope we won't have anyone pasting LLM replies onto bugs or patch
review, or an automated process doing that. I would *not* want to see
something like Sashiko for example. It would seriously put me off
contributing to glibc and I don't think it is respectful of
contributors' time who have come to us with a bug report or patch.

We should discuss this I think before handing out access.

Now, if a maintainer wants to use it to aid their review (with great
care), that may be more acceptable.

sam

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEBBAEWCgCpFiEEJaa7iN2bdkxrVUHCc4QJ9SDfkZAFAmosklsbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQyNUE2QkI4OEREOUI3NjRDNkI1NTQx
QzI3Mzg0MDlGNTIwREY5MTkwDxxzYW1AZ2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRBzhAn1IN+RkNPp
AQCLhFeMxFiNcp4RKeZU0gkw+3RrTJg6kSeZEUWYU8DngwEAnAAORFDNoHj6dDoX
h6tY42UGXwVReCL50FqKLyfJXgI=
=eqtj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--