Re: AI contributions
Pavel Sanda <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.editors.lyx.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 03:38:45PM -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > I am broadly in agreement with your analysis. Practically speaking, if > existing developers want to use AI to help them fix bugs, then I have no > problem with it. I trust all of us to review the code the same way we > usually would. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a +1 sort of policy, the > way we do just before releases, just to guarantee an additional level of > review in such cases, at least at first. It also wouldn't hurt for people to > post things, along with the patches, similar to what you did. But I'm not > sure we need to require that. I agree with both +1 rule and posting analysis along with the patches. > Code submissions from unknown external people are a different matter. I > don't see a need to rule these out entirely, but they would need careful > review. But that's already true for contributions from such people. > Maybe review that is a bit more careful would be good. I had similar thoughts on this. For newcomers we don't know what their "review" means and my expectations about maintenance commitment are low when the initial investment is just writing five initial prompt sentences. > It's pretty freaking impressive what Claude did. I am reasonably confident that way simpler bugs like https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/13260 are one prompt and 5 mins away; the review will be probably trivial. > I recently got sent a paper > by a colleague in which he used AI to help him prove a central lemma. His > view was that he could have done it himself, but he was a bit rusty on > certain things, and so AI made it much easier. :) https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cycles.pdf Pavel -- lyx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel